Spencer Stratton, by v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6184
SPENCER STRATTON, by and through biological mother, natural guardian, next
friend, guardian ad litem; KATHY STRATTON,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES; MECKLENBURG COUNTY CLERK OF COURT;
KEVIN PAUL OLIVER, CEO of Phoenix Counseling Center,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00455-MR)
Submitted: March 30, 2022 Decided: July 15, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Spencer Stratton, Kathy Stratton, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kathy Stratton (“Stratton”) seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing the
pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that she filed on behalf of her son, Spencer Stratton.* 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). 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, 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 Stratton has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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
* Because Stratton lacked standing to bring this pro se petition on behalf of her son,
see Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2005); Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 294 F.3d 598, 603 (4th Cir. 2002), the district court’s dismissal was, necessarily,
a dismissal without prejudice, see Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 2 --