Steven Martin v. Brian Frosh, in his official capacity as Attorney General; STATE OF MARYLAND

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7749
STEVEN MARTIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General; STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-02341-JKB)
Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Jesse McCants, MCCANTS FIRM, Clinton, Maryland, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM:
Steven Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.* 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 Martin 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
* Although the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959
F.3d 605, 610-12, 615 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).

-- 2 of 2 --