UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7350
ANTONIO GORDON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (8:10-cv-02578-MBS)
Submitted:
April 24, 2012
Decided:
May 16, 2012
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Gordon seeks to appeal the district courts
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
certificate
2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue
absent
of
appealability.
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.
28
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
of
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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 Gordon has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED