Roger Bowers, Jr. v. David Ballard, No. 13-6649 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6649 ROGER LEE BOWERS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00073-JPB-DJJ) Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Bowers, Jr., Appellant Dodrill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY Virginia, for Appellee. Pro Se. GENERAL, Christopher S. Charleston, West Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Lee Bowers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying reconsideration of his the Fed. R. district Civ. P. court s 60(b) for adopting order motion the magistrate judge s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 justice The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bowers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3