Summary
denying certificate of appealability where habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
Summary of this case from Lauderdale-El v. Ind. Parole Bd.Opinion
21-6351
03-18-2022
ANTHONY WAYNE WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. KENNETH LASSITER, Respondent-Appellee.
Anthony Wayne Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 28, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19-hc-02297-M)
Anthony Wayne Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Wayne Watson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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, 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 Watson 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.