Roosevelt Sabb, Jr. v. Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7370
ROOSEVELT SABB, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (5:21-cv-02603-BHH)
Submitted: October 24, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roosevelt Sabb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Sabb, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sabb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition, and denying reconsideration. 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. Gonzales 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 Sabb 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