Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07287/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Johnson
Appellant
Kenneth Lassiter
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7287

JEROME JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH LASSITER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00778-LCB-JEP)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7287 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Johnson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 19-7287 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2