Court Opinion

ID: 9946007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:12.554801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.757175
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6938

        DOUGLAS ROY SYMMES, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                            Respondent - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00235-WO-JEP)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938         Doc: 9       Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Symmes’ 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 Symmes 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