USCA4 Appeal: 23-6764 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6764

ALPHONZA L.P. THOMAS-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN STINE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00035-TDS-JEP)

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

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonza L.P Thomas-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6764 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Alphonza L.P. Thomas-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge; dismissing Thomas-Bey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition; and denying Thomas-Bey’s related motions. 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 Thomas-Bey 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