UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6825
DAVID HENRY ROGERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
REUBEN F. YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00842-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Henry Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Henry Rogers appeals the district court’s orders
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his
motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal.
First, Rogers did not timely appeal the district
court’s order denying his § 2254 petition. Absent circumstances
warranting tolling, parties are accorded thirty days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007).
The district court’s order denying Rogers’ § 2254
petition was entered on the docket on December 13, 2013. Rogers
did not timely file his motion for reconsideration, nor did he
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
Accordingly, Rogers’ notice of appeal, filed approximately five
months after the denial of his § 2254 petition, was untimely. *
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal, May 12, 2014, is the earliest
date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials
for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss Rogers’ appeal of the denial of his
§ 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, to the extent Rogers appeals the denial of
his motion for reconsideration, he fails to show his entitlement
to 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 Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the remainder of the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4