Ricky Dingle v. Debora Darden ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6384 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6384
RICKY DINGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN DEBORA DARDEN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02750-TDC)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 23, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Dingle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6384 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
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
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6384 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3