-
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6679 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6679 JOHN RODNEY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00487) Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rodney Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6679 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: John Rodney Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see generally United States v. McRae,
793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). 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 Johnson 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 22-6679
Filed Date: 9/27/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/28/2022