Alphonza L.p. Thomas-Bey v. John Stine

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6764
ALPHONZA L.P. THOMAS-BEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN STINE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00035-TDS-JEP)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alphonza L.P Thomas-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alphonza L.P. Thomas-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge; dismissing Thomas-Bey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition; and denying Thomas-Bey’s related
motions. 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas-Bey 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

-- 2 of 2 --