Case ID: f-appx_569/html/0147-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frankie Jae LORDMASTER, f/k/a Jason Robert Goldader, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-8016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2014.
    Decided: April 28, 2014.
    Frankie Jae Lordmaster, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Frankie Jae Lordmaster seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for production of best evidence and original exhibits as moot. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lordmaster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lordmaster’s motion to compel and motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.