Rasheed Tamir Glover v. SHANE JACKSON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6656
RASHEED TAMIR GLOVER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHANE JACKSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (9:23-cv-03391-SAL)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rasheed Tamir Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and denying relief on Glover’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 Glover 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 --