Court Opinion

ID: 4663376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-26 21:00:21.555519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:50.253109
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7772

WALTER TIMOTHY GAUSE,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ERIC A. HOOKS, Secretary of Department of Public Safety,

                     Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00306-MR)

Submitted: February 23, 2021                                  Decided: February 26, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Timothy Gause, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Walter Timothy Gause seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. 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 Gause has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Gause’s motion to amend his

informal opening brief, 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