UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY EUGENE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00175)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Eugene Smith appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and ultimately
denying his numerous pending motions related to his conviction and
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error
with respect to the court’s denial of Smith’s motions for discovery
requests, default judgment, to remit fine and restitution, and to
treat his illness. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Smith, No. 1:05-cv-00175 (S.D.W.
Va. July 25, 2007; Aug. 1, 2007).
To the extent the district court dismissed the majority
of motions filed by Smith as second or successive § 2255 motions,
an appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
- 2 -
676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing.
We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to
those portions of the court’s orders.*
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
*
To the extent that in his informal brief Smith seeks relief
from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2000) and Fed. R. App. P.
2, we deny relief.
- 3 -