Thomas Gee v. Cynthia Thornton, No. 14-6975 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6975 THOMAS BRANT GEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CYNTHIA THORNTON; FRANK PERRY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00187-CCE-LPA) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Amended: Decided: October 24, 2014 November 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Brant Gee, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Brant Gee seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing petition. or judge as untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue his absent “a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Gee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gee’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3