Opinion
22-6397
09-13-2022
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent - Appellee.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 8, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-MHL)
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi 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 Makdessi's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The 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 Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Makdessi's request for an injunction related to the prison's handling of his incoming legal mail. 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