Thomas Davis v. Attorney General of Maryland, No. 13-7222 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7222 THOMAS DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHEARIN, Warden, OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; BOBBY Respondents Appellees and JOHN ROWLEY, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-03453-AW) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Davis seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Davis has unsuccessfully conviction in a true § 2254 petition. challenged his Because Davis s 60(b) motion was a successive and unauthorized § 2254 petition, see In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), and the order is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 2 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3