Kevin Lydon v. Joseph Walters

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6830 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6830 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

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)).

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6830 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 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