Case Name: Michael Joseph FORMICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 699 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 17-6889
Parties: Michael Joseph FORMICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Michael Joseph FORMICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6889
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: October 24, 2017
Michael Formica, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Joseph Formica seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred. 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 ap-pealability 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 Formica 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