Michael Gorbey v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6123 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6123 MICHAEL S. GORBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of Department of Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-6611 MICHAEL S. GORBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director, Virginia Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00667-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. June 4, 2014 No. 14-6123 dismissed; No. 14-6611 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Case No. 14-6123, Michael S. Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gorbey has not made the requisite showing. deny Gorbey s pending motions, appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 3 deny a Accordingly, we certificate of In Case No. 14-6611, Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his § 2254 petition. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. No. 14-6123 DISMISSED No. 14-6611 AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
