Court Opinion

ID: 4580204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-23 19:00:32.75638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:25.573426
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6804

SEAN R. BROWN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00370-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: October 20, 2020                                   Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean R. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Sean R. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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 Brown 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