Russell Edward Murray v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6820
RUSSELL EDWARD MURRAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Adult Correction,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00075-MR)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Edward Murray, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Russell Edward Murray seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. 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 denying a § 2254
petition 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 Murray 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 --