Court Opinion

ID: 6316849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-23 20:01:01.110767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.539561
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 21-7682

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

SCOTLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02056-D)

Submitted: February 17, 2022                                  Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Casey Rafael Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice 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 Tyler’s informal brief, we

conclude that Tyler 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 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