UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 related motions. The February 18 order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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
Adams has not made the requisite showing. The district court
2
lacked jurisdiction to deny Adams’s Rule 60(b) motion on the
merits because the claims he raised challenged the validity of
his state convictions, and thus the motion should have been
construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the
district court’s February 18 order. Adams remains 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. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Adams’s informal and supplemental informal
briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s
disposition of the March 10 order, Adams has forfeited appellate
review of the order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d
423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s March 10 order. We dispense with oral argument
3
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