UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: July 24, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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