Court Opinion

ID: 9947162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:02.044285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:00.320534
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6955      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6955

        JOHN RAGIN,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Department of Corrections; JEFFERY
        ARTRIP, Warden,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00337-EWH-DEM)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Ragin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6955         Doc: 10      Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Ragin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Ragin’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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ragin has not made

        the requisite showing. 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