Troy Mazyck v. Ronald Weber

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-6646
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6646 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6646

TROY MAZYCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF W.C.I. RONALD SHANE WEBER; ANTHONY G. BROWN, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01182-PX)

Submitted: February 7, 2025 Decided: March 19, 2025

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Mazyck, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6646 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Mazyck seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition without prejudice 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 Mazyck 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