UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7367
JACKIE JAMES BRADY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS E. MECUM,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00933-LCB-JLW)
Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jackie James Brady, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jackie James Brady seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brady’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2018) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would 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 Brady has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brady’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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