USCA4 Appeal: 23-6351 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6351

DENNIS J. RYDBOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT DONNIE AMES, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00043)

Submitted: December 4, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Rydbom, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6351 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis J. Rydbom seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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

petition. The 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)).

In his informal brief, Rydbom contests the district court’s rejection of his claims

alleging Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations. After independently reviewing the

record, we conclude that Rydbom has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the

court’s decision. 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