Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Madison MCCAULEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-6112
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 10, 2017
    Decided: May 19, 2017
    James Madison McCauley, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. .

PER CURIAM:

James Madison McCauley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCauley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility, deny leave • to proceed in forma pauperis, deny McCauley’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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