U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2022

Edward Witherspoon v. Frank Bishop

Edward Witherspoon v. Frank Bishop
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 29, 2022

Edward Witherspoon v. Frank Bishop

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No 21-7740

EDWARD WITHERSPOON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01663-TDC)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Edward Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust his 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). Because the district court denied relief on procedural grounds, Witherspoon 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)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Witherspoon’s informal brief, we conclude that Witherspoon has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Witherspoon’s motion for 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.