USCA4 Appeal: 22-6432 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6432

JONATHAN JOSEPH LIND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RALPH TERRY, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 23-6329

JONATHAN JOSEPH LIND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RALPH TERRY, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee,

and USCA4 Appeal: 22-6432 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

Respondent.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-26284)

Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Joseph Lind, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6432 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Jonathan Joseph Lind seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying various nondispositive motions, the court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lind’s

petition, and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

the judgment. 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)).

As a preliminary matter, we grant Lind’s motion to supplement the informal

appendix. In addition, limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lind’s

informal brief, we conclude that Lind has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R.

34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief

is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues

preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, deny his motion to certify, deny his motions to

appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6432 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

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

4