Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06727/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06727-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6727

LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-00577-RGD-RJK)

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Joseph Huffstutter, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6727 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

LeAnthony T. Winston seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the 

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

petition, and denying his postjudgment motions. 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). 

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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Winston has not 

made the requisite showing. Because Winston failed to sufficiently explain why he did not 

present several of his claims to the state courts, we conclude that reasonable jurists could 

not debate the district court’s denial of those claims as procedurally barred. See Gray v. 

Zook, 806 F.3d 783, 798 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “[w]hen a petitioner fails to 

comply with state procedural rules . . . the claim is procedurally defaulted and federal 

review is generally foreclosed”). Nor could reasonable jurists debate the district court’s 

denial of Winston’s claims challenging the conditions of his now-completed confinement 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6727 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in state prison. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (holding that challenge to 

“now-ended incarceration or parole” is moot unless “some collateral 

consequence . . . exist[s]” that court can redress (internal quotation marks omitted)). And 

although Winston argues that an evidentiary hearing on his claims was warranted, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in declining to order such a hearing. See 

Juniper v. Zook, 876 F.3d 551, 563 (4th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

Accordingly, we deny as moot Winston’s motion to expedite, deny his remaining 

pending motions, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6727 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 3 of 3