Court Opinion

ID: 9882052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:11.231547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.858081
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6764      Doc: 6        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6764

        ALPHONZA L.P. THOMAS-BEY,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        JOHN STINE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00035-TDS-JEP)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alphonza L.P Thomas-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6764         Doc: 6      Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alphonza L.P. Thomas-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge; dismissing Thomas-Bey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition; and denying Thomas-Bey’s related

        motions. The order is 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, as here, 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 Thomas-Bey 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