Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr. v. TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6768
DENNIS RODGER DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity),
Respondent - Appellee,
and
BRYAN P. STERLING, Director SCDC (Official Capacity); JEANNINE PRICE,
Case Manager KER CI (Official Capacity),
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:19-cv-02720-JD)
Submitted: January 4, 2023 Decided: January 17, 2023
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, __, 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 Davis has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny the motion to appoint counsel, 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 of 2 --