Opinion
No. 19-6672
09-27-2019
JESSE L. EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee.
Jesse L. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). --------
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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED