Jesse Evans v. Harold Clarke ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6672
JESSE L. EVANS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-00452-RJK)
Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse L. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse L. Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely
Evans’ 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 Evans has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
Evans’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny Evans’ motion for an order
designating the record on appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
∗
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) (2012).
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3