UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6587
LLOYD VAN SHAWN DOWNING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-00413-JBF-DEM)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 6, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd Van Shawn Downing, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Van Shawn Downing 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 (2006)
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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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.
The district court found that Downing failed to timely
file his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition within the applicable
limitation period provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2006).
Downing fails to challenge this finding on appeal. Moreover, we
find no reversible error in the district court’s timeliness
2
calculation. 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 the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3