Brian Tidmore v. Warden Wolfe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion for transcript at government expense [1000304878-2] denied. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-03473-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000334945]. Mailed to: Brian Tidmore. [18-6513]
Appeal: 18-6513
Doc: 6
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6513
BRIAN K. TIDMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN WOLFE; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03473-RDB)
Submitted: July 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian K. Tidmore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: July 24, 2018
Appeal: 18-6513
Doc: 6
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brian K. Tidmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tidmore has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Tidmore’s motion for transcripts at government expense, 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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?