UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6975

THOMAS BRANT GEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA THORNTON; FRANK PERRY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00187-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014

Amended: November 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Brant Gee, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas Brant Gee seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his

(2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

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

deny Gee’s 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3