Edward Witherspoon v. Frank B. Bishop; Maryland Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No 21-7740
EDWARD WITHERSPOON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01663-TDC)
Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court 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). Because the district court denied relief on procedural grounds, Witherspoon
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 Witherspoon’s informal
brief, we conclude that Witherspoon 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 Witherspoon’s motion for 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 of 2 --