Ernest Donald Washington v. TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden Deerfield Correctional Center; HAROLD CLARKE, Director of DOC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6349
ERNEST DONALD WASHINGTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden Deerfield Correctional Center; HAROLD
CLARKE, Director of DOC,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-00792-RCY)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Donald Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Donald Washington seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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)).
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 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. 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 Washington has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Washington’s motions for an
evidentiary hearing, 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 the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-- 2 of 2 --