USCA4 Appeal: 23-6585 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6585

DARNELL CARLTON BOUIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00159-GMG)

Submitted: November 27, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell Carlton Bouie, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6585 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Darnell Carlton Bouie seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

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

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 Bouie 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