Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06862/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06862-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Michael Frye
Appellant
Warden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6862

TIMOTHY MICHAEL FRYE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cv-01661-GLR)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Michael Frye, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6862 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Michael Frye, a Maryland state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Frye has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We also deny Frye’s pending motions. 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: 24-6862 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2