David Potter v. Bernard Booker ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7442
DAVID A. POTTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BERNARD W. BOOKER, Warden Buckingham Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-00661-RCY)
Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 11, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Potter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David A. Potter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely
Potter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. ∗ See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 &
n.9 (2018) (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)
(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When, as here, the magistrate judge 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 Potter has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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
∗
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) (2018).
2