Court Opinion

ID: 9947018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:18.90237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.983405
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6944      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6944

        JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        LEVERN COHEN, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00994-DCN)

        Submitted: January 31, 2024                                  Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6944      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

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

        petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) 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 Garvin has not made

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

        appeal. ∗ Garvin’s motion to remand and emergency motion are denied. We dispense with

               ∗
                 The district court denied the motions for reconsideration based on its mistaken
        belief that Garvin’s appeal divested it of jurisdiction to consider the motions. However,
        Garvin failed to state grounds for Rule 59(e) relief, see Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp.,
        599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010), and his Rule 60(b) motion sought to reargue the claims
        he asserted in his § 2254 petition and therefore was an unauthorized, successive § 2254
        petition over which the district court lacked jurisdiction; see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3);

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6944      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        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

        United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the denial of the
        motions for reconsideration is not debatable.

                                                    3