Court Opinion

ID: 6318114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-28 21:01:32.927963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:19.908025
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7191

DAVID B. GRAY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00856-TSE-MSN)

Submitted: February 24, 2022                                 Decided: February 28, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David B. Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to pay the filing fee. 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 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Gray’s informal brief, we

conclude that Gray 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