Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06351/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06351-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6351

DENNIS J. RYDBOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT DONNIE AMES, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00043)

Submitted: December 4, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Rydbom, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6351 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis J. Rydbom seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rydbom’s 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)). 

In his informal brief, Rydbom contests the district court’s rejection of his claims 

alleging Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations. After independently reviewing the 

record, we conclude that Rydbom has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the 

court’s decision. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6351 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2