In these consolidated appeals, Devon Lona Lunn seeks to appeal the district courts June 30, 2020 order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Lunn also appeals from the district courts denial—in that same order—of Lunns January 2020 motion requesting relief under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Finally, in No. 20-7464 only, Lunn appeals from the district courts September 21, 2020 judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Lunns February 2020 motion seeking relief under the First Step Act.
1
With respect to the district courts denial of Lunns § 2255 motion, the denial of § 2255 relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lunn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss these appeals in part.
2
As for the district courts denial of Lunns January 2020 motion requesting relief under the First Step Act, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lunn, No. 1:16-cr-00019-WO-4 (M.D.N.C. June 30, 2020). Regarding Lunns February 2020 motion seeking relief under the First Step Act, Lunn failed to file objections to the magistrate judges recommendation after receiving proper notice. We thus conclude that Lunn has waived appellate review of the district courts judgment denying the February 2020 motion. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
3
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
FOOTNOTES
1
. Additionally, Lunns informal brief in No. 20-7464 might also be construed to challenge the district courts September 21, 2020 order denying Lunns motion to amend. Insofar as Lunn seeks to appeal from that order, we have reviewed the order and discern no error therein.
2
. To the extent that Lunns informal briefs raise claims that she did not allege in her § 2255 motion and related filings submitted to the district court, we decline to consider them. See Berkeley Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Hub Intl Ltd., 944 F.3d 225, 235 (4th Cir. 2019).
3
. In No. 20-7075, we grant Lunns motion to amend or correct her informal brief and deny Lunns motions for the appointment of counsel and for copies of transcripts at government expense.
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.