UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7366
ALVIN DARRELL SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN D. L. STINE, USP McCreary; WARDEN
STEVEN SMITH, District of Columbia; JOHN R.
SIMPSON, USDC - USDOJ,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cv-00064-REM)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: February 13, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin Darrell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Darrell Smith, a District of Columbia prisoner,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. The court further grants the Respondent’s motion to
substitute custodian and denies Smith’s motions to stop transfer
and directing Warden Stine to comply with his declaration. 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -