Terron Gerhard Dizzley v. Warden Stephon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6329
TERRON GERHARD DIZZLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEPHON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00126-JD)
Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terron Gerhard Dizzley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Dizzley’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Dizzley has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also grant Dizzley’s motion to amend his informal brief and deny his remaining
motions. 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 --