Opinion
24-6179
08-26-2024
MICHAEL ANDREW PETERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent - Appellee
Michael Andrew Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 22, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00346-AWA-RJK).
Michael Andrew Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Michael Andrew Peterson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Peterson'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 Peterson 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.