Damon Doyle v. A. Padula, No. 14-6464 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6464 DAMON L. DOYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:10-cv-03242-JMC) Submitted: July 17, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon L. Doyle seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction because our mandate had issued in Doyle s appeal of the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, the judgment he sought to vacate under Rule 60(b). appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice or The order is not judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. at 484-85. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that, although the district court s reason for dismissing Doyle s Rule 60(b) motion is erroneous, see Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 17 (1976) (holding that it is wellsettled that the District Court may entertain a Rule 60(b) motion[,] without leave by this Court[,] even if the appellate court has judgment), already an decided an alternative procedural renders this appeal futile. Doyle s Rule successive 60(b) § 2254 authorization to file. of the ground complained-of for dismissal See Reid, 369 F.3d at 372 n.5. motion petition appeal was for tantamount which to Doyle a failed second to or obtain See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, and dismiss the appeal. we deny a certificate of appealability 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
