Legal Research AI

Brian Reavis v. Stevne

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date filed: 2021-07-02
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 21-6304


BRIAN A. REAVIS,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

FNU STEVNE,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02178-BO)


Submitted: June 29, 2021                                            Decided: July 2, 2021


Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian A. Reavis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Brian A. Reavis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012)

(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from

latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here,

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. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reavis has not made

the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED




                                              2