USCA4 Appeal: 21-7005 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7005

EUGENE THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-02176-MBS)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7005 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Thomas, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying various postjudgment motions Thomas filed in his federal habeas proceeding—

including, most notably, Thomas’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district

court’s prior order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on

Thomas’

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A); see generally United

States v. McRae,

, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Thomas has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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

2