Case Name: Alexander JIGGETTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-01
Citations: 635 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 15-7519
Parties: Alexander JIGGETTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 635
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
Alexander JIGGETTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7519.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2016.
Decided: March 1, 2016.
Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Jiggetts has been confined to a state mental health facility after being declared incompetent to stand trial, and he seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice 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 MillerEl 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 Jiggetts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
We conclude that the district court's order is final and appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir.2015).