Court Opinion

ID: 2669052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-07 19:00:44.155667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.790538
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7583

CURTIS L. WADE,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL HARDEE,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02061-D)

Submitted:   February 25, 2014                  Decided:    April 7, 2014

Before NIEMEYER     and   KING,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis L. Wade, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Curtis L. Wade seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       his    28   U.S.C.        § 2254    (2012)        petition     as

untimely.      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 Wade 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

                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3