Darrell Goss v. Charles Williams ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6181
DARRELL L. GOSS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:18-cv-02938-BHH)
Submitted: July 27, 2020 Decided: August 5, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell L. Goss, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell L. Goss seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the order and
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goss has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Goss’
motions for release on bail and expedited consideration, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2