Edmond Adams, III v. Warden Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 6:12-cv-03424-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999965423]. Mailed to: Edmond Stanley Adams, III. [16-6410]

Appeal: 16-6410

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6410

EDMOND STANLEY ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN EAGLETON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03424-DCN)

Submitted:

October 27, 2016

Decided:

November 9, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6410

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Edmond Stanley Adams, III, seeks to appeal two district
court orders: (1) the district court’s February 18, 2016 order
denying Adams’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the
court’s

prior

judgment

denying

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition, and (2) the March 10, 2016 order denying his motion to
recuse

and

appealable

related

motions.

unless

a

The

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

February

justice

18

or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484–85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Adams has not made the requisite showing.
2

The district court

Appeal: 16-6410

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

lacked jurisdiction to deny Adams’s Rule 60(b) motion on the
merits because the claims he raised challenged the validity of
his state
construed

convictions,
as

a

and

thus

successive

28

the

motion

U.S.C.

§

should

2254

have

been

petition.

See

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005) (explaining how
to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized
second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same).

In the

absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district
court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2254 petition.
See

28

U.S.C.

certificate
district

of

§

2244(b)(3)

(2012).

appealability

court’s

February

and

18

Accordingly,

dismiss

order.

the
Adams

we

deny

appeal

of

remains

a

the

free,

however, to pursue the legal issues identified in his Rule 60(b)
motion in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012).
The district court’s March 10 order denied Adams’s motion
to recuse and related motions.

On appeal, we confine our review

to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
34(b).
briefs

Because
do

not

Adams’s

challenge

informal
the

and

basis

for

See 4th Cir. R.

supplemental
the

district

informal
court’s

disposition of the March 10 order, Adams has forfeited appellate
review of the order.
423,

430

n.4

(4th

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d
Cir.

2004).

district court’s March 10 order.
3

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

We dispense with oral argument

Appeal: 16-6410

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/09/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4