Court Opinion

ID: 4672460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-29 19:00:56.236706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:26.772753
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6061

C. JOSEPH MOSBEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JOSH STEIN; THE CORPORATE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01002-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: March 23, 2021                                         Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Joseph Mosbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       C. Joseph Mosbey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Mosbey’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. 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 Mosbey’s informal briefs,

we conclude that Mosbey 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