[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16725 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 14, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00063-CV-4
RANDALL DALE WATSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN VICTOR L. WALKER,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 14, 2009)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Randall Dale Watson, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The district court denied the petition because Watson failed to appeal the
denial of his state habeas petition to the Georgia Supreme Court and thus, his
claims were unexhausted and procedurally barred. We granted a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) on only the following issue:
Whether Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 40, as amended, has any affect
on this Court’s holding in Pope v. Rich, 358 F.3d 852,
854 (11th Cir. 2004) that a Georgia prisoner must file an
application for a certificate of probable cause with the
Georgia Supreme Court challenging the denial of his
state habeas petition in order to exhaust his state
remedies and thereby avoid a procedural default.
On appeal, Watson exclusively argues the merits of his underlying federal
constitutional claims without addressing the exhaustion issue upon which the COA
was granted.
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, we review
questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings of fact
for clear error. Mancill v. Hall, 545 F.3d 935, 939 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). “[I]n an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, appellate
review is limited to the issues specified in the COA.” Murray v. United States, 145
F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Moreover, if a habeas petitioner
fails to address an issue on appeal, that petitioner is generally deemed to have
2
abandoned the matter. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir.
1992) (noting that a habeas petitioner abandons a claim by failing to address it on
appeal).
Because Watson failed to address the sole issue presented in the COA, he
has abandoned the matter. As our appellate review is limited to the issues
specified the COA, we therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Watson’s
habeas petition.
AFFIRMED.
3