UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6729

TRAYVON STRANGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

RALPH TERRY, Warden,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00402)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trayvon Strange, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Trayvon Strange seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Strange’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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Strange has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Strange’s motion for the appointment of

counsel, 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