Opinion
23-6309
06-27-2023
JAMES EDWARD ROSE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. RANDY DEMORY, Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HONORABLE D. L. JEFFERSON; SHERIFF DUANE LEWIS, Respondents.
James Edward Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 22, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00130-HMH)
James Edward Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
James Edward Rose, Jr., a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Rose's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Because Rose has not challenged the district court's dispositive procedural ruling in his informal brief, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of Rule 34(b) and reiterating that our review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief). 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