Opinion
22-7129
01-03-2024
KEITH MARTIN MOLINEAUX, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNIE AMES, Respondent - Appellee.
Keith Martin Molineaux, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 14, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00190)
Keith Martin Molineaux, Appellant Pro Se.
Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Martin Molineaux seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Molineaux's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is 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 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 Molineaux has not made the requisite showing.[*] Accordingly, we grant Molineaux's motion to exceed length limitations for his informal brief, deny his motion for 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
[*] We limit our review of the record to the issues Molineaux properly preserved for appeal. See Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting we do "not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that, "to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection" (internal quotation marks omitted)).