USCA4 Appeal: 23-6453 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6453

JOHN LAMONT MCKINNON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Virgina Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00846-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: October 3, 2024 Decided: October 15, 2024

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lamont McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6453 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: John Lamont McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 McKinnon has not made the requisite showing. Specifically, although McKinnon argues otherwise, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that the § 2254 proceedings complied with federal procedural rules regarding endorsement of pleadings and judgments. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

* To the extent McKinnon also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2254 petition, we conclude that his failure to prosecute his prior appeal of that order bars him from challenging it in this appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 45.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6453 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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