Willie Ritter v. AARON JOYNER, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7491

WILLIE RITTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

AARON JOYNER, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:18-cv-01508-TLW)

Submitted: June 29, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Willie Ritter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ritter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773-74 (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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ritter 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