Isiah James, Jr. v. Bryan Stirling
Isiah James, Jr. v. Bryan Stirling
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6886 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6886
ISIAH JAMES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN P. STIRLING,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01837-TLW)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6886 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Isiah James, Jr., previously a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reopen his
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
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 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 James 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished