Jeffrey Mitchell v. JOSEPH WALTERS, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6985
JEFFREY MITCHELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH WALTERS, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00720-RCY-MRC)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his
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)). Preliminarily,
Mitchell has moved for an extension of time to file a motion for a certificate of
appealability; we grant that motion. He has also moved for assignment of counsel; we
deny that motion.
The district court’s 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 Mitchell has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s motion for 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 --