Court Opinion

ID: 9949423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 17:01:21.503903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.796967
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6143      Doc: 7         Filed: 03/07/2024      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6143

        ROBERT L. FOSTER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN OF LIVESAY 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-03332-TMC)

        Submitted: January 18, 2024                                           Decided: March 7, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6143      Doc: 7         Filed: 03/07/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as

        an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. He also appeals the district court’s subsequent

        order construing his motion for release from custody as an unauthorized, successive habeas

        petition and dismissing it on that basis. * We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.

               The order dismissing Foster’s § 2254 petition is not appealable unless a circuit

        justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Jones

        v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made

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

        appeal as to the district court’s order dismissing Foster’s § 2254 petition as successive. As

        for the order dismissing Foster’s subsequent motion for release from custody, we have

               *
                 A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s order
        dismissing the motion for release from custody as an unauthorized, successive habeas
        petition. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); Bixby v. Stirling, __ F.4th __,
        2024 WL 85060, at *13 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024); United States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366,
        370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6143         Doc: 7      Filed: 03/07/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court properly construed the motion as a

        successive habeas petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because Foster failed to obtain

        prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d

        at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the motion.

               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 IN PART,
                                                                              AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     3