Case Name: Tyel CLAIBORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-26
Citations: 474 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 12-6495
Parties: Tyel CLAIBORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
Tyel CLAIBORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6495.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2012.
Decided: June 26, 2012.
Tyel Claiborne, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office Of The Attorney General Of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyel Claiborne seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Claiborne 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.