Court Opinion

ID: 4568277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:34:11.832549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.768567
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6455

DEWAYNE ANTHONY MINOR,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN, Sussex I State Prison,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00531-RCY)

Submitted: August 25, 2020                                        Decided: August 28, 2020

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewayne Anthony Minor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dewayne Anthony Minor seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing

as untimely Minor’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 magistrate judge 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 Minor 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

       *
           The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

                                               2