Michael Gleason v. George Janice

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00061-GMG-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999285706]. Mailed to: Laura Young. [13-7776]

Appeal: 13-7776

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7776

MICHAEL GLEASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE JANICE, Warden, Stevens Correctional Center,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
HONORABLE DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00061-GMG-JES)

Submitted:

January 23, 2014

Decided:

January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Gregory Dyer, DYER LAW OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia;
David J. Joffe, JOFFE LAW, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for
Appellant. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST
VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7776

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Gleason seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Gleason has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7776

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 01/28/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3