Court Opinion

ID: 4614143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-20 20:02:30.329026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:44.190951
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7496

ALONDA BARREN DESAUSSURE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01955-BHH)

Submitted: October 30, 2020                                 Decided: November 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonda Barren Desaussure, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Alonda Barren Desaussure seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Desaussure’s 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, 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)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues properly raised in Desaussure’s

informal brief, we conclude that Desaussure has not made the requisite showing. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

                                              2
      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

                                          3