UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7045

RONALD J. MACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00359-RGD-RJK)

Submitted: March 29, 2021 Decided: April 2, 2021

Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald J. Mack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronald J. Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as untimely Mack’s

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,

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mack’s informal brief, we

conclude that Mack 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.

* Mack does not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding that his § 2254 petition was not timely filed.

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