Court Opinion

ID: 4248603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-27 20:00:30.166717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:10.715178
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7316

RHETT BEAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00803-JAG)

Submitted: February 22, 2018                                 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rhett Bean, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rhett Bean seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and 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 Bean has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2