Opinion
21-6800
10-24-2022
MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 14, 2022
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)
Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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