Opinion
21-7289 21-7361
03-31-2022
DAVID LEE KLUTTZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. DAVID LEE KLUTTZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.
David Lee Kluttz, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 29, 2022
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge; L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-00647-WO-LPA)
David Lee Kluttz, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, David Lee Kluttz 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 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)) (Appeal No. 21-7289), and the magistrate judge's order granting in part the Respondent's motion to seal documents (Appeal No. 21-7361).
The order dismissing Kluttz's § 2254 petition 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 Kluttz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Appeal No. 21-7289.
Turning to Appeal No. 21-7361, nondispositive matters may be referred to a magistrate judge without the parties' consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If a party opposes a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive matter, the party must "file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy." Id. Except when a magistrate judge acts under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), we lack jurisdiction over any appeals from a magistrate judge's order. See United States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994). Because Kluttz did not appeal to the district court from the magistrate judge's decision granting in part the motion to seal, we are without jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge's order. We therefore dismiss Appeal No. 21-7361. 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.