Court Opinion

ID: 9957259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:42.34485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:13.401491
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7046      Doc: 16         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7046

        DON GARFIELD GALLOWAY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex; R. S.
        MUTTER, Superintendent,

                             Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00993)

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

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Don Garfield Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
        Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7046         Doc: 16       Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Don Garfield Galloway seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Galloway’s amended 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 Galloway 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