Britney Bates v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6431 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6431
BRITNEY ODELL BATES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, in his official capacity as Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00359-HEH-MRC)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Britney Odell Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Brooker, Assistant Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6431 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Britney Odell Bates, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. First, we grant Bates’ motion to amend
his informal brief and have considered it in our review. The district court’s 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 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 Bates 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