Court Opinion

ID: 6316843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-23 20:00:54.545202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:44.618680
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7300

JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02009-FL)

Submitted: February 17, 2022                                  Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Eugene Brunson, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Porter Babb, Sr., Special Deputy
Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Jonathan Eugene Brunson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The orders are 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 Brunson 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