Jonathan Lind v. Ralph Terry ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6432
JONATHAN JOSEPH LIND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RALPH TERRY, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent.
No. 23-6329
JONATHAN JOSEPH LIND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RALPH TERRY, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-26284)
Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Joseph Lind, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jonathan Joseph Lind seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying various nondispositive motions, the court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lind’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition, and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, 580 U.S.
100, 115-17 (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)).
As a preliminary matter, we grant Lind’s motion to supplement the informal
appendix. In addition, limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lind’s
informal brief, we conclude that Lind has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief
is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, deny his motion to certify, deny his motions to
appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 4 of 4
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
4