USCA4 Appeal: 25-6667 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6667

DEBORAH VIDETTO GUY, a/k/a Deborah Videtto Guy Hubbard Sarvis, a/k/a Deborah Videtto Hubbard, a/k/a Deborah Hubbard-Sarvis,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF CAMILLE GRAHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (8:25-cv-00245-SAL)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah Videtto Guy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6667 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Videtto Guy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Guy’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)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Guy has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Guy’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, and we 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