DocketNumber: 21-6819
Filed Date: 8/27/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/27/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6819 DARRELL L. GOSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BRIAN KENDALL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-04133-BHH) Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Goss, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Goss seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 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,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 Goss did not make 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