Jerome Curry v. Kirkland Corr. Inst.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6305 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6305 JEROME CURRY, a/k/a Flesh And Blood Man, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KIRKLAND CORR. INST.; LIEBER CORR. INST. WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. No. 25-6377 JEROME CURRY, a/k/a Flesh And Blood Man, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KIRKLAND CORR. INST.; LIEBER CORR. INST. WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (0:24-cv-01674-JDA) Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6305 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6305 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jerome Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Curry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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, 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 Curry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curry’s pending motions, 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 3