Jerome Curry, a/k/a Flesh And Blood Man v. Kirkland Corr. Inst.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6305
JEROME CURRY, a/k/a Flesh And Blood Man,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KIRKLAND CORR. INST.; LIEBER CORR. INST. WARDEN; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 25-6377
JEROME CURRY, a/k/a Flesh And Blood Man,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KIRKLAND CORR. INST.; LIEBER CORR. INST. WARDEN; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (0:24-cv-01674-JDA)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Curry, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Curry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
without prejudice for failure to exhaust 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, 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 Curry has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curry’s pending motions, 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 --