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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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 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