Timothy Johnson v. S. Jackson ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6834 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6834
TIMOTHY JOHNSON, a/k/a Timothy L. Johnson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
S. JACKSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:23-cv-01753-SAL)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6834 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Johnson’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (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)). The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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. 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 Johnson has not
made the requisite showing. Johnson filed his § 2254 petition more than a year after the
statute of limitations had run. Moreover, as the district court correctly concluded,
Johnson’s claim that he attempted to file his second collateral challenge in state court
sooner than he did fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the
limitations period. Therefore, his petition was untimely.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6834 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
3