Arnold McCartney v. Donnie Ames

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7197 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7197 ARNOLD WAYNE MCCARTNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex and Jail, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00103-GMG) Submitted: January 17, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Benjamin Cooper, BLACKWATER LAW, PLLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7197 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Arnold Wayne McCartney seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on McCartney’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and denying his motion for 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. 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 McCartney 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