Steven Martin v. Brian Frosh ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-7749
    STEVEN MARTIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BRIAN FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General; STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-02341-JKB)
    Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 23, 2021
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Jesse McCants, MCCANTS FIRM, Clinton, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition for lack of jurisdiction. * 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 Martin 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
    *
    Although the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
    without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 
    959 F.3d 605
    , 610-12, 615 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 
    141 S. Ct. 1376
     (2021).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-7749

Filed Date: 8/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/23/2021