Jefferey Hurley v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jefferey Hurley v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7370

JEFFEREY A. HURLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00408-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jefferey A. Hurley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Jefferey A. Hurley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2006)

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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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

that Hurley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Hurley’s motion to compel and motion for 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished