Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06776/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellant
Michael K. James
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6776

MICHAEL K. JAMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director VDOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. 

(1:16-cv-00140-LO-MSN)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael K. James, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6776 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael K. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The

order 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, as 

did the district court, that James has not shown that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling. James v. Clarke, No. 1:16-cv00140-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. May 13, 2016). Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed by the district court, we deny 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

Appeal: 16-6776 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 2