Court Opinion

ID: 4662291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-23 20:00:27.15098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:42.438329
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7420

MICHAEL EUGENE BOWDEN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HARVEY CLAY,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cv-00634-WO-JLW)

Submitted: February 18, 2021                                 Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Eugene Bowden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Eugene Bowden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Bowden’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 Bowden 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