Court Opinion

ID: 2651410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-28 19:52:26.668553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:24.517026
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7779

MICHAEL TORY, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

R. C. METHENA, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee,
          and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

                Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00905-JRS)

Submitted:   January 23, 2014               Decided:   January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Tory, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Alice Theresa Armstrong,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Michael E. Tory, Jr., 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   appealability.           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    (2000);     see    Miller-El      v.   Cockrell,        537    U.S.    322,     336-38

(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.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Tory has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly, we

deny    Tory’s      motion       for     appointment       of        counsel,        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

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3