UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7238


SAMUEL ANSTEY,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

RALPH TERRY, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

                     Respondent - Appellee,

              and

DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

                     Respondent.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03462)


Submitted: May 28, 2020                                            Decided: June 8, 2020


Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew Jeram Katz, KATZ WORKING FAMILIES’ LAW FIRM, LC, Charleston West
Virginia, for Appellant.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Samuel Robert Anstey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Anstey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2018) petition. 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) (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 could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 

, 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, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anstey has not made

the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny Anstey’s motion for 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