Christopher Martin v. Joseph Walters - Appeal Dismissal

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Christopher James Martin's appeal of a district court's order. The court denied Martin's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite showing of a denial of a constitutional right.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of Christopher James Martin, who sought to challenge the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The petition was deemed an unauthorized, successive filing. The court found that Martin failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a prerequisite for appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

This decision means the appeal is dismissed, and Martin's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this pertains to an individual inmate's appeal process.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6609 CHRISTOP HER JAMES M ARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH WALTERS, Virgin ia Department of Corrections, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District J udge. (1:25 - cv - 00617 - P TG - WBP) Submitted: February 26, 2 02 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAU M, Circuit Judg es, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher James Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Christopher J ames Ma rtin seeks t o appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 p etition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app ealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of app ealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a co nstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prison er must demonstrate both that the dispositive p rocedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitu tional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140 - 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not ma de the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Martin’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, 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 d ecisional process. DISMISSED