USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6560

RICHIE LEO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VA Dept of Corr, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richie Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Richie Leo Williams appeals the district court’s orders dismissing, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Williams’ hybrid complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and denying Williams’ motion for a certificate of appealability. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

To the extent Williams’ complaint sought relief under § 2254, the district court dismissed the complaint as a successive and unauthorized § 2254 petition. Williams may not challenge the district court’s denial of habeas relief unless a circuit judge or justice 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability as to Williams’ habeas claims and dismiss this appeal in part.

To the extent Williams challenges the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm in part.

Williams v. Clarke, No. 1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 26, 2023 & entered Apr. 27, 2023; filed May 25, 2023 & entered May 26, 2023). We dispense with oral

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART