USCA4 Appeal: 24-6431 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6431

BRITNEY ODELL BATES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, in his official capacity as Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00359-HEH-MRC)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Britney Odell Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Brooker, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6431 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Britney Odell Bates, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his

petition. First, we grant Bates’ motion to amend

his informal brief and have considered it in our review. The district court’s order is 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 Bates 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