Opinion
22-6384
08-23-2022
RICKY DINGLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN DEBORA DARDEN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Ricky Dingle, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 18, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02750-TDC)
Ricky Dingle, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Ricky Dingle seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court determined that Dingle was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) and that his motion was a second or successive § 2254 petition. Our review shows that Dingle's motion was a true Rule 60(b) motion, and, as such, the court's order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 &n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Dingle 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