Court Opinion

ID: 4297109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-24 19:01:38.872003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:17.153292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6513

BRIAN K. TIDMORE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN WOLFE; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03473-RDB)

Submitted: July 19, 2018                                          Decided: July 24, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian K. Tidmore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Brian K. Tidmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).           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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tidmore has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Tidmore’s motion for transcripts at government expense, 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