Holley v. Mount Olive Correctional, No. 05-7505 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7505 RICKY MELVIN HOLLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-96-2) Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Byron Lees, Jr., HUNT & LEES, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert David Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Melvin Holley seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
