Brandon J. Flack v. DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7562

BRANDON J. FLACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

RALPH TERRY; J.T. BINION, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center
and Jail,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-04381)

Submitted: May 5, 2020 Decided: June 26, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Jamar Flack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Jamar Flack seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Flack’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 Flack 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