Terrell McCoy v. John Palmer

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6653 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6653 TERRELL MCCOY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOHN PALMER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:23-cv-00089-MGL) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: March 12, 2025 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6653 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/12/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Terrell McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on McCoy’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying 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 McCoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McCoy’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny McCoy’s motions for counsel and to reconsider a prior order, 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