Court Opinion

ID: 9391098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:33.2141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.412927
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7379

        MARCUS ALBINUS JOSEPH, a/k/a Marcus A. Joseph, a/k/a Marcus Albines
        Joseph,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN WALLACE, Kirkland Correctional Institution,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03282-RMG)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcus Albinus Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379         Doc: 9      Filed: 04/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcus Albinus Joseph, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, construing Joseph’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and dismissing the petition as unauthorized and

        successive. 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 Joseph has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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

                                                      2