Jacoby G. Fields v. Joseph McFadden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6793
JACOBY G. FIELDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (5:16-cv-00038-DCN)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacoby G. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jacoby G. Fields, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Fields’ 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v.
McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Fields 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 --