Dewayne Minor v. Warden ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6455
    DEWAYNE ANTHONY MINOR,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, Sussex I State Prison,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00531-RCY)
    Submitted: August 25, 2020                                        Decided: August 28, 2020
    Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dewayne Anthony Minor, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dewayne Anthony Minor seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing
    as untimely Minor’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 magistrate judge 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 Minor 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
    *
    The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6455

Filed Date: 8/28/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2020