Norma Brown, f/k/a Norma B. Griffin v. PATRICK MORRISEY, West Virginia Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6960
NORMA BROWN, f/k/a Norma B. Griffin,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK MORRISEY, West Virginia Attorney General,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT OF
GREENBRIER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00196)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norma Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Norma Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brown’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 Brown 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

-- 3 of 3 --