U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2025

Khalil Salahuddin v. Chadwick Dotson

Khalil Salahuddin v. Chadwick Dotson
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 18, 2025

Khalil Salahuddin v. Chadwick Dotson

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6138 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6138

KHALIL A. SALAHUDDIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:24-cv-00146-RBS-RJK)

Submitted: August 25, 2025 Decided: September 18, 2025

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khalil A. Salahuddin, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6138 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Khalil A. Salahuddin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Salahuddin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, 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 Salahuddin 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

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