Justin Jermaine Johnson, a/k/a Justin J. Johnson v. Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6753
JUSTIN JERMAINE JOHNSON, a/k/a Justin J. Johnson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-03210-CMC)
Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justin Jermaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Justin Jermaine Johnson, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
Johnson’s 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, 115-17 (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 Johnson 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 --