USCA4 Appeal: 23-6396 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6396

LAMARE JENNINGS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00084-RJK)

Submitted: September 29, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamare Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6396 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Lamare Jennings seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders and judgment 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. 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 magistrate judge 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 magistrate judge 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 Jennings has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Jennings’ motion to subpoena all evidence. 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

∗ The parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).