UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7296


ANTONIO PROPHET,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee,

              and

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

                     Respondent.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00178-TSK)


Submitted: September 30, 2020                                 Decided: October 15, 2020


Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Prophet, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Antonio Prophet seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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

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). 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, 

, 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)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Prophet’s informal brief,

we conclude that Prophet has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 

, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Prophet’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