Court Opinion

ID: 9365142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:39.144952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.394529
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7192      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7192

        TORI NEAL,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ERIK A. HOOKS,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00247-WO-LPA)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tori Neal, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7192         Doc: 12       Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tori Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and dismissing Neal’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred.

        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 Neal 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