Case Name: Michael Link BEARFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 16-6832
Parties: Michael Link BEARFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Michael Link BEARFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6832
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 4, 2016
Michael Link Bearfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.'
PER CURIAM:
Michael Link Bearfield seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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 Bearfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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