Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06955/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06955-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6955

JOHN RAGIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Department of Corrections; JEFFERY 

ARTRIP, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00337-EWH-DEM)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Ragin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6955 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

John Ragin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Ragin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are 

subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates 

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ragin has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6955 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2