Case Name: Antoine Jermaine THORNTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 13-6421
Parties: Antoine Jermaine THORNTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 343–343

Head Matter:
Antoine Jermaine THORNTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6421.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 18, 2013.
Antoine Jermaine Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Jermaine Thornton 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 appealability. 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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thornton 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 th'e materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.