Brian Parks v. DONALD F. AMES, Superintendent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7521
BRIAN PARKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DONALD F. AMES, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:20-cv-00691)
Submitted: March 28, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Parks, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Parks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 would find that the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 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 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 Parks has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Parks’
motion to appoint counsel, 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 --