Court Opinion

ID: 9913850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:43.720966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:02.683088
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6843      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6843

        ROBERT MCKINLEY BLANKENSHIP,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00174-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert McKinley Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6843      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert McKinley Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing

        as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, 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)).

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

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

        dismiss the appeal.     We deny Blankenship’s motion to compel counsel to release

        Blankenship’s case file and his motion to unseal records. 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