UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7359
ROBERT EUGENE EASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH B. HALL,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
No. 14-7393
ROBERT EUGENE EASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH B. HALL,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02004-D)
Submitted: January 27, 2015 Decided: February 6, 2015
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
No. 14-7359 dismissed; No. 14-7393 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Robert Eugene Eason, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Robert Eugene Eason
seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition (No. 14-7359), and
the court’s post-judgment order overruling his pleading
purported to be objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation (No. 14-7393). The order dismissing Eason’s
§ 2254 petition as untimely 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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Eason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss Eason’s appeal of the district
court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely. We
affirm the district court’s order overruling Eason’s objections
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation because Eason’s
3
petition was not referred to a magistrate judge. 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. 14-7359 DISMISSED
No. 14-7393 AFFIRMED
4