Phillip Michael Giles v. Chadwick Dotson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7008
PHILLIP MICHAEL GILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 24-7082
PHILLIP MICHAEL GILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00519-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 15, 2025

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Michael Giles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Philip Michael Giles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the
order dismissing his § 2254 petition. The orders are 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Giles has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Giles’ motions to place his appeals in
abeyance, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --