Cavell Devon West v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999313381-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00544-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999395583]. Mailed to: Cavell Devon West. [14-6081]

Appeal: 14-6081

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/15/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6081

CAVELL DEVON WEST,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00544-REP)

Submitted:

June 16, 2014

Decided:

July 15, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cavell Devon West, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6081

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/15/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cavell Devon West seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

untimely

28

U.S.C.

§

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 West has not made the requisite showing because he has not
preserved his challenge to the district court’s finding that the
petition was untimely.
appealability,

deny

dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

and

We dispense with oral argument because the
2

Appeal: 14-6081

facts

Doc: 12

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 07/15/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3