Case Name: Nathan L. HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Patrick McCrory, Governor; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 653 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 15-7941
Parties: Nathan L. HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Patrick McCrory, Governor; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
Nathan L. HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Patrick McCrory, Governor; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-7941
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: May 31, 2016
Nathan L. Holden, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan L. Holden, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
By failing to challenge the district court's dispositive holdings in his informal brief, Holden has waived his right to challenge the district court's order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Our independent review of the record nonetheless confirms the district court's dispositive holdings. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.