UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6380
RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00083-JPB-RWT)
Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Vincent Pendleton 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 dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. 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, 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 Pendleton 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