C. Mosbey v. Josh Stein ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6061
C. JOSEPH MOSBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSH STEIN; THE CORPORATE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01002-TDS-JLW)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Joseph Mosbey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
C. Joseph Mosbey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Mosbey’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. 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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mosbey’s informal briefs,
we conclude that Mosbey has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see
also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an
important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved
in that brief.”). 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