John Ragin v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Department of Corrections; JEFFERY ARTRIP, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6955
JOHN RAGIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Department of Corrections; JEFFERY
ARTRIP, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00337-EWH-DEM)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Ragin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Ragin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Ragin’s 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 Ragin 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 --