Court Opinion

ID: 9405652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:58.071722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.237041
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309       Doc: 8        Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6309

        JAMES EDWARD ROSE, JR.,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        RANDY DEMORY, Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center,

                             Respondent - Appellee,

                      and

        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HONORABLE D. L. JEFFERSON; SHERIFF
        DUANE LEWIS,

                             Respondents.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00130-HMH)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                              Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Edward Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309      Doc: 8        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James Edward Rose, Jr., a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s

        order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Rose’s 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (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)).

               Because Rose has not challenged the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling in

        his informal brief, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir.

        R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of

        Rule 34(b) and reiterating that our review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief).

        Accordingly, we 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

                                                      3