Court Opinion

ID: 9839363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 21:00:41.761142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:22.316313
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6879      Doc: 12         Filed: 09/11/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6879

        (CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN, FCI Beckley,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00138)

        Submitted: September 5, 2023                                Decided: September 11, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6879      Doc: 12          Filed: 09/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               (Chief) Col. Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, a District of Columbia offender, seeks

        to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

        and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable

        unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002); cf.

        Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1864, 1868 (2023); In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 783 (4th

        Cir. 2016). 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

        by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

        constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

        When 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 Owlfeather-Gorbey

        has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,

        deny the pending motion, 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