Quinten Parrish v. Chadwick Dotson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-7097
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7097 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7097

QUINTEN D. PARRISH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir. of Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00671-RCY-MRC)

Submitted: March 4, 2025 Decided: March 18, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quinten D. Parrish, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7097 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Quinten D. Parrish seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing for lack of

jurisdiction his 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); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th

Cir. 2004). 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 Parrish 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