UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6672


JESSE L. EVANS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-00452-RJK)


Submitted: September 24, 2019                               Decided: September 27, 2019


Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jesse L. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jesse L. Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely

Evans’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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, 

, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 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. 

.

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

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

Evans’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny Evans’ motion for an order

designating the record on appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument




       ∗
        The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) (2012).

                                              2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             3