USCA4 Appeal: 23-6566 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6566

HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC A. HOOKS, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00934-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: April 15, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Sharod James-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6566 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Harry Sharod James-El appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing James-El’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 James-El 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