Case Name: Lajoel Theodore ROUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-30
Citations: 584 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 14-6715
Parties: Lajoel Theodore ROUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 76–76

Head Matter:
Lajoel Theodore ROUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6715.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2014.
Lajoel T. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Aya-na Niambi Free, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaJoel Theodore Rouse seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, construing the petition as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The district court's order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rouse 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.
The district court properly determined that Rouse could not proceed with his claims under § 2241. See United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n. 7 (4th Cir.2008); In re: Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2000).