Court Opinion

ID: 9364293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 21:00:30.911923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:37.025581
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768      Doc: 16         Filed: 01/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-6768

        DENNIS RODGER DAVIS, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity),

                            Respondent - Appellee,

                     and

        BRYAN P. STERLING, Director SCDC (Official Capacity); JEANNINE PRICE,
        Case Manager KER CI (Official Capacity),

                            Respondents.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:19-cv-02720-JD)

        Submitted: January 4, 2023                                        Decided: January 17, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768       Doc: 16         Filed: 01/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and dismissing his 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, __, 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 Davis has not made

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

        deny the motion to appoint counsel, 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