Thomas Gee v. Cynthia Thornton

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed amending and superseding opinion dated October 24, 2014. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00187-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties. Mailed to: Thomas Gee. [14-6975]

Appeal: 14-6975

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6975

THOMAS BRANT GEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CYNTHIA THORNTON; FRANK PERRY,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00187-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014
Amended:

Decided:

October 24, 2014

November 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Brant Gee, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6975

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Brant Gee 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 Gee has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Gee’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to

proceed

dispense

in

with

forma

pauperis,

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-6975

Doc: 16

contentions

are

Filed: 11/25/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3