Johnathan Wendell Ward v. State of North Carolina; Ben Carver

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6897
JOHNATHAN WENDELL WARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BEN CARVER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02074-M)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnathan Wendell Ward, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Wendell Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 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 Ward 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

-- 2 of 2 --