Case Name: Andrew David WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-03
Citations: 583 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 14-6842
Parties: Andrew David WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Andrew David WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6842.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2014.
Andrew David White, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER. CURIAM:
Andrew David White seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recom mendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely White's 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(e)(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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny White's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.