UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6123
MICHAEL S. GORBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-6611
MICHAEL S. GORBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00667-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
No. 14-6123 dismissed; No. 14-6611 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Case No. 14-6123, Michael S. Gorbey 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
(2012) 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) (2012). 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) (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, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Gorbey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Gorbey’s pending motions, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
3
In Case No. 14-6611, Gorbey seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of
the order dismissing his § 2254 petition. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm the district court’s order.
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.
No. 14-6123 DISMISSED
No. 14-6611 AFFIRMED
4