Court Opinion

ID: 9397289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:21.946724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.184792
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7357      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7357

        JAMES TYTIL WRIGHT,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:22-cv-01102-RMG)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Tytil Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7357      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Tytil Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Wright’s 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that

        § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four

        commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable

        unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.         28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, as here, 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. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

        529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Wright’s informal brief, we

        conclude that Wright has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

        document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

        brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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

                                                     2