Court Opinion

ID: 9375093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:02.108216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.196147
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6752      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6752

        THOMAS THOMPSON,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00631-TMC)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                   Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6752       Doc: 11         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order on remand accepting

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing Thompson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and denying relief on Thompson’s petition. The

        district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

        The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Thompson that failure

        to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

        a district court order based upon the recommendation. Noting that Thompson failed to file

        objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and dismissed the action. On appeal from that dismissal order, we

        concluded that Thompson had timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

        recommendation and, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of Thompson’s

        claims, vacated the district court’s dismissal order and remanded to the district court for

        consideration of Thompson’s objections. See Thompson v. Warden of Tyger River Corr.

        Inst., No. 21-7582, 2022 WL 1619342, at *1 (4th Cir. May 23, 2022).

               On remand, the district court found that Thompson failed to raise specific objections

        to the magistrate judge’s report and accepted the magistrate judge’s initial

        recommendation. Thompson, however, does not challenge the district court’s ruling on the

        specificity of the objections on appeal.

               The district court’s order on remand 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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6752      Doc: 11        Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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)).

              Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Thompson’s informal brief,

        we conclude that Thompson 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, deny Thompson’s

        motion to compel Respondent to produce parole records, 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

                                                    3