Court Opinion

ID: 4681376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-27 19:00:51.723347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:41.759390
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7390

DAVID ANTHONY MCKINNEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

KELVIN T. KING,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00721-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: April 22, 2021                                         Decided: April 27, 2021

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony McKinney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Anthony McKinney, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on McKinney’s

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.    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)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKinney 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