Court Opinion

ID: 4614141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-20 20:02:29.156131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:59:43.669250
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-6926

CURTIS RAY BROOKS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director- V.D.O.C.,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00595-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: November 16, 2020                                Decided: November 20, 2020

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Ray Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Curtis Ray Brooks 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)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Brooks’ informal brief, we

conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Brooks’ motion for

appointment of counsel, 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