USCA4 Appeal: 23-6843 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6843

ROBERT MCKINLEY BLANKENSHIP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00174-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert McKinley Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6843 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Robert McKinley Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing

as untimely his

petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Blankenship has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Blankenship’s motion to compel counsel to release

Blankenship’s case file and his motion to unseal records. 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