Deborah Videtto Guy, a/k/a Deborah Videtto Guy Hubbard Sarvis, a/k/a Deborah Videtto… v. Warden of Camille Graham Correctional Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6667
DEBORAH VIDETTO GUY, a/k/a Deborah Videtto Guy Hubbard Sarvis, a/k/a
Deborah Videtto Hubbard, a/k/a Deborah Hubbard-Sarvis,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF CAMILLE GRAHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (8:25-cv-00245-SAL)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Videtto Guy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Videtto Guy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Guy’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 Guy has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Guy’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, and we 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 --