Gaylor v. Coleman, No. 06-6547 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6547 GENE W. GAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Correctional Complex, Warden, Mt. Olive Respondent - Appellee. No. 06-7106 GENE W. GAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Correctional Complex, Warden, Mt. Olive Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (5:02-cv-01206) Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. February 7, 2007 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gene W. Gaylor, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus Blevins, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Gene W. Gaylor seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or The orders are judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 Gaylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. 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 - 3 -
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.
