USCA4 Appeal: 23-7197 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7197

ARNOLD WAYNE MCCARTNEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex and Jail,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00103-GMG)

Submitted: January 17, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Benjamin Cooper, BLACKWATER LAW, PLLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-7197 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Arnold Wayne McCartney seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

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

petition, and denying his motion for 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 McCartney 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