Case Name: James H. DILLINGHAM, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-13
Citations: 571 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 13-7920
Parties: James H. DILLINGHAM, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
James H. DILLINGHAM, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-7920.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2014.
Decided: May 13, 2014.
James H. Dillingham, III, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James H. Dillingham, III, seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Dillingham has not made the requisite showing. Accord ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.