John Johnson v. Donnie Ames ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 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    UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2254
     petition. 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