USCA4 Appeal: 24-6179 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6179

MICHAEL ANDREW PETERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00346-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Andrew Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6179 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Andrew Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Peterson’s

petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler,

, 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

(d)(1)). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not

made the requisite showing. 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

2