Opinion
21-7005
12-27-2021
EUGENE THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 21, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-02176-MBS)
Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Eugene Thomas, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying various postjudgment motions Thomas filed in his federal habeas proceeding- including, most notably, Thomas' Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's prior order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Thomas' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 &n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Thomas 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