Quinten D. Parrish v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir. of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7097
QUINTEN D. PARRISH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir. of Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00671-RCY-MRC)
Submitted: March 4, 2025 Decided: March 18, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quinten D. Parrish, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quinten D. Parrish seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition.
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); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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 Parrish 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 --