John Baccus v. Warden of Evans Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7129 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7129 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:24-cv-03744-DCN) Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7129 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: John Roosevelt Baccus seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Baccus’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here, 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 Baccus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Baccus’s motion to enforce his civil rights and motion raising restrictive covenants and public outcry concerns and 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