Quinten Parrish v. Chadwick Dotson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7097 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7097 QUINTEN D. PARRISH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir. of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00671-RCY-MRC) Submitted: March 4, 2025 Decided: March 18, 2025 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quinten D. Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7097 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Quinten D. Parrish seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 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); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Parrish 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 2