Jack Lewis v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-6642      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-6642
    JACK EUGENE LEWIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    CHADWICK S. DOTSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (7:22-cv-00421-RSB-JCH)
    Submitted: November 19, 2024                                Decided: November 22, 2024
    Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jack Eugene Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-6642         Doc: 10       Filed: 11/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jack Eugene Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     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). 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)).
    Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lewis’s informal brief, we
    conclude that Lewis 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, we deny Lewis’s motion for a certificate of appealability and to
    appoint counsel 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: 24-6642

Filed Date: 11/22/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2024