Michael Gorbey v. Harold Clarke

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6800 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6800
MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00270-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: October 14, 2022 Decided: October 24, 2022
Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6800 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on Feather-Gorbey’s 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 showing that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must show both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable
and 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 Feather-Gorbey 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