USCA4 Appeal: 24-7218 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7218

JERROD ANTONIO FULLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. EMILY FAITH FULLER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02573-BAH)

Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerrod Antonio Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7218 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Jerrod Antonio Fuller seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking review of state court child custody and domestic relation orders and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 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)).

* Although Appellant petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he has not established that he is in state custody.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7218 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fuller 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