UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7442


DAVID A. POTTER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

BERNARD W. BOOKER, Warden Buckingham Correctional Center,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-00661-RCY)


Submitted: April 30, 2020                                         Decided: May 11, 2020


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David A. Potter, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David A. Potter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely

Potter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. ∗ See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

, 148 &

n.9 (2018) (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)

(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When, as here, the magistrate judge 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. 

(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

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

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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




       ∗
        The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) (2018).

                                              2