MARTIN v. FROSH STATE OF MARYLAND (2021)

Steven Martin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.^* 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, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Although the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610-12, 615 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1376, 209 L.Ed.2d 122 (2021).

PER CURIAM:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.