Kevin M. Lydon v. JOSEPH WALTERS, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6830
KEVIN M. LYDON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH WALTERS, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00591-EWH-DEM)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin M. Lydon, Appellant Pro Se. Mitchell Ellis Sanders, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin M. Lydon seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lydon’s 28 U.S.C. § 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). 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 Lydon has not made
the requisite showing. Reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of
Lydon’s Equal Protection Clause and Ex Post Facto Clause claims. And Lydon forfeited
review of his cruel and unusual punishment claim by failing to specifically object to that
portion of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245
(4th Cir. 2017) (“In order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a
party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity
so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --