Thomas Moyler, Jr. v. George Schaffer, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 25-6461
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6461 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6461

THOMAS MOYLER, JR., a/k/a Shiek Thomas Moyler-Bey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE SCHAFFER, III, Clerk,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00554-LMB-WBP)

Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Moyler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6461 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Moyler, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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). 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 Moyler has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny as moot Moyler’s motion for bond, 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

* Parties in a civil case must file a notice of appeal “within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, the district court did not enter “a separate document” after dismissing Moyler’s § 2254 petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) (“Every judgment . . . must be set out in a separate document.”). Accordingly, Moyler’s appeal, which was filed more than 30 days but less than two months after the district court entered the appealed-from order, is timely. See Quinn v. Haynes, 234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir. 2000); see also Ueckert v. Guerra, 38 F.4th 446, 453 (5th Cir. 2022) (“[P]arties have a 180-day window to file a notice of appeal if the district court [did not] enter . . . a separate document.”).