UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6749
MONTAVIUS ANTOINE JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID MITCHELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00003-FDW)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 30, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Montavius Antoine Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Montavius Antoine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed. ∗ The order is not appealable unless a
0F
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Johnson 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
∗
This appeal follows our remand to the district court for consideration of Johnson’s
claims that his petition was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), (D) (2012). See
Johnson v. Mitchell, 685 F. App’x 214 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-7216). On remand, the
district court thoroughly analyzed these arguments, and Johnson’s appeal is now properly
before this court.
2
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3