Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07359/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Eugene Eason
Appellant
Joseph B. Hall
Appellee
State of North Carolina

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7359

ROBERT EUGENE EASON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH B. HALL,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

No. 14-7393

ROBERT EUGENE EASON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH B. HALL,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal: 14-7359 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02004-D)

Submitted: January 27, 2015 Decided: February 6, 2015

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

No. 14-7359 dismissed; No. 14-7393 affirmed by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Robert Eugene Eason, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7359 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Eugene Eason 

seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition (No. 14-7359), and 

the court’s post-judgment order overruling his pleading 

purported to be objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation (No. 14-7393). The order dismissing Eason’s 

§ 2254 petition as untimely is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate 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 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Eason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss Eason’s appeal of the district 

court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely. We 

affirm the district court’s order overruling Eason’s objections 

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation because Eason’s 

Appeal: 14-7359 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

petition was not referred to a magistrate judge. 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.

No. 14-7359 DISMISSED

No. 14-7393 AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-7359 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pg: 4 of 4