UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7449
BOBBY D. MORGAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN D. BERKEBILE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00966)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby D. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United
States Attorney, J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby D. Morgan, a District of Columbia Code offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
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) (2006). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Morgan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3