Court Opinion

ID: 9896270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:02.859681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.931439
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370      Doc: 11         Filed: 11/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-7370

        ROOSEVELT SABB, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (5:21-cv-02603-BHH)

        Submitted: October 24, 2023                                  Decided: November 7, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roosevelt Sabb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370         Doc: 11       Filed: 11/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Roosevelt Sabb, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

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

        petition, and denying reconsideration. 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. Gonzales 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 Sabb 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