Case Name: Bryant Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-25
Citations: 556 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 13-7832
Parties: Bryant Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Bryant Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7832.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2014.
Bryant Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as time-barred 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). 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.