Ryan O’neal Davis v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6435
RYAN O’NEAL DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00350-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan O’Neal Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ryan O’Neal Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Davis’ 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 Davis 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 of 2 --