Opinion
22-7373
02-24-2023
PHILLIP CHARLES REEVES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Phillip Charles Reeves, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-02773-CMC)
Phillip Charles Reeves, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Phillip Charles Reeves, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Reeves 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, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reeves has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reeves' motion to dismiss his state charges, 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