Court Opinion

ID: 4846118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-23 19:01:21.709472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:15.604292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7749

STEVEN MARTIN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

BRIAN FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General; STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-02341-JKB)

Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 23, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Jesse McCants, MCCANTS FIRM, Clinton, Maryland, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Steven Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. * 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 Martin 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

       *
        Although the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959
F.3d 605, 610-12, 615 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).