Brian Farabee v. Commissioner - Appeal of Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissal

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6774 BRIAN D. FARABEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSION ER OF THE VIRGINIA DEPART MENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AL SERVICES; D IRECTOR O F THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOA RD; DIRECT OR OF THE WIL LIAMSBURG COMMUNITY S ERVICES BOARD; S UPERINTENDEN T OF VIRGINIA PENINSULA REGI ONAL JAIL; SUPERI NTENDENT OF VIRGINIA B EACH CORRECTIONA L COMPLEX; DIRECT OR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPAR TMENT OF CORRECT IONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judg e. (2:24 - cv - 00493 - AWA - LRL) Submitted: February 24, 202 6 Decided: March 4, 2026 Before GREGORY, WYNN, a nd HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Damon Farabee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Brian D. Farabee seeks to app eal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrat e judge and dismissing Farabee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state court remedies. Th e order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a p etitioner sati sfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists cou ld find the district court’s assess ment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 - 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the p etitio ner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling was w rong or debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitution al right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140 - 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 47 3, 484 (200 0)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude tha t Farabee has not shown that the dispositive procedural ruling was wrong or debatable. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, d eny the pending motions, and d ismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * We express no view on the merits of Farabee’s claims and note that our dismissal is without prejudice to Farabee reasserting his claims at the appropriate time.

3 presented in the materials befo re this court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process. DISMISS ED