Michael James v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999879860-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999847834-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00140-LO-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929981].. [16-6776]

Appeal: 16-6776

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6776

MICHAEL K. JAMES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge.
(1:16-cv-00140-LO-MSN)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael K. James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6776

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael K. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 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.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude, as
did the district court, that James has not shown that he is
entitled to equitable tolling.

James v. Clarke, No. 1:16-cv-

00140-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. May 13, 2016). Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed

by

the

district

court,

we

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

2