Philip Ostrander v. Director, VA Dep't of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6939
PHILIP J. OSTRANDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00634-JRS)
Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: January 15, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip J. Ostrander, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Philip J. Ostrander 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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 Ostrander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
although we grant Ostrander’s motion to amend his informal
brief, 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3