Marcus Joseph v. Warden Wallace

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7379
MARCUS ALBINUS JOSEPH, a/k/a Marcus A. Joseph, a/k/a Marcus Albines
Joseph,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN WALLACE, Kirkland Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03282-RMG)
Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Albinus Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Albinus Joseph, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, construing Joseph’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and dismissing the petition as unauthorized and
successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 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 Joseph 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