Sarah Elizabeth Flanders v. Chadwick Dotson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6773
SARAH ELIZABETH FLANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00439-AJT-JFA)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sarah Elizabeth Flanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Elizabeth Flanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition on procedural grounds. 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Flanders’ informal brief,
we conclude that Flanders 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 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 --