UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6908

JAMES R. ROSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant,

No. 21-6938

JAMES R. ROSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (0:20-cv-02921-RBH)

Submitted: October 14, 2021 Decided: October 19, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Rose, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James R. Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rose’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court’s 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Rose has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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