Abdu-Salim Gould, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould v. TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6195
ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 22-6255
ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02176-FL)
Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdu-Salim Gould, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Abdu-Salim Gould seeks to appeal the district court’s orders: (1) denying his
motion for entry of default, for default judgment, for summary judgment, and for a stay or
injunction pending discovery (No. 22-6195); and (2) dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as a duplicative petition (No. 22-6255). The orders are 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gould has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gould’s motion for a default judgment, deny
a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --