Case Name: Thomas Brant GEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON; Frank Perry, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 14-6975
Parties: Thomas Brant GEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON; Frank Perry, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Thomas Brant GEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON; Frank Perry, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14-6975.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2014.
Amended: Nov. 25, 2014.
Thomas Brant Gee, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Brant Gee 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 ap-pealability. 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 Gee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gee'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.