Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06669/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06669-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ballard
Appellee
David Lawrence Dixon
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6669

DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior

District Judge. (1:13-cv-07498)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lawrence Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6669 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lawrence Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive

and the court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.∗ 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). 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 

 ∗ We construe Dixon’s informal brief as a timely notice of 

appeal from the underlying order. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 

244, 248-49 (1992) (holding that appellate brief may serve as 

notice of appeal provided it otherwise complies with rules 

governing proper timing and substance). We also note that, 

although Dixon labeled his postjudgment motion as one under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b), it was filed within 28 days after entry of the 

underlying order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Appeal: 15-6669 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

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

Appeal: 15-6669 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 3 of 3