Court Opinion

ID: 4526714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-17 19:00:33.81418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:44.825835
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 19-7779

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-hc-02183-BO)

Submitted: April 14, 2020                                         Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2018) petition 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) (2018). 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, 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 Tyler 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

                                              2