Opinion
21-6329
09-20-2021
TERRON GERHARD DIZZLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN STEPHON, Respondent - Appellee.
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 14, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00126-JD)
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terron Gerhard Dizzley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Dizzley's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 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, 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 Dizzley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also grant Dizzley's motion to amend his informal brief and deny his remaining motions. 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.