Court Opinion

ID: 9957252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:32.473816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.196952
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6753      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6753

        JUSTIN JERMAINE JOHNSON, a/k/a Justin J. Johnson,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-03210-CMC)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Justin Jermaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6753         Doc: 12      Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Justin Jermaine Johnson, a South Carolina prisoner, 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 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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

                                                     2