Court Opinion

ID: 9391086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:21.548769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.475072
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7076      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7076

        WEBSTER R. NEUMANN,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        MR. WEDELLE, Superintendent; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00892-CCE-JEP)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Webster R. Neumann, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7076         Doc: 10      Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Webster R. Neumann, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s

        order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely

        Neumann’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 Neumann 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