Curtis Johnson v. Allendale Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7043 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7043 CURTIS T. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-03583-TMC) Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7043 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis T. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judges and denying relief on Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Johnson’s informal brief, we conclude that Johnson 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. 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