USCA4 Appeal: 24-7043 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7043

CURTIS T. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-03583-TMC)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7043 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis T. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

recommendations of the magistrate judges and denying relief on Johnson’s

petition. 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)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Johnson’s informal brief,

we conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see

also Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

in that brief.”). 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