Case Name: Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina; Greenville County Courthouse 13th; John Vandermosten, Assistant Administrative Director; Mr. Bodiford, Deputy Director, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 17-6951
Parties: Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina; Greenville County Courthouse 13th; John Vandermosten, Assistant Administrative Director; Mr. Bodiford, Deputy Director, Respondents.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina; Greenville County Courthouse 13th; John Vandermosten, Assistant Administrative Director; Mr. Bodiford, Deputy Director, Respondents.
No. 17-6951
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Workman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Workman's motion to dismiss the indictment, 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