Court Opinion

ID: 9963206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:00:59.149915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.673560
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6127      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6127

        ISAAC GLENARD LYLES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:21-cv-01937-BHH)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                             Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before KING, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Isaac Glenard Lyles, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6127         Doc: 7      Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Isaac Glenard Lyles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lyles’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition and denying Lyles’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 Lyles 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