Opinion
21-6768
01-17-2023
DENNIS RODGER DAVIS, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity), Respondent-Appellee, and BRYAN P. STERLING, Director SCDC (Official Capacity); JEANNINE PRICE, Case Manager KER CI (Official Capacity), Respondents.
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 4, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:19-cv-02720-JD)
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and 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, ___, 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 Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the motion 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.