Brian D. Farabee v. Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6774
BRIAN D. FARABEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES; DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; DIRECTOR OF THE WILLIAMSBURG
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; SUPERINTENDENT OF VIRGINIA
PENINSULA REGIONAL JAIL; SUPERINTENDENT OF VIRGINIA BEACH
CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00493-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: February 24, 2026 Decided: March 4, 2026
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Damon Farabee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brian D. Farabee seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Farabee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available 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).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a petitioner 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 petitioner must demonstrate
both that the dispositive procedural ruling was wrong or 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 Farabee has not
shown that the dispositive procedural ruling was wrong or debatable.* Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motions, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
* We express no view on the merits of Farabee’s claims and note that our dismissal
is without prejudice to Farabee reasserting his claims at the appropriate time.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --