Robert Blankenship v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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