UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7074

JAMES MAURICE WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00108-MR)

Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 20, 2020

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Maurice Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Maurice Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Wilson’s informal brief and

supplemental informal brief, we conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. *

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey,

(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 also deny Wilson’s motion for injunctive relief.

* To the extent that Wilson’s informal brief and supplemental informal brief raise claims that he did not allege in his § 2254 petition, we decline to consider those claims. See Berkeley Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Hub Int’l Ltd.,

(4th Cir. 2019).

2 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