Court Opinion

ID: 9375226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:37.206682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.949999
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7373      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7373

        PHILLIP CHARLES REEVES,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-02773-CMC)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Phillip Charles Reeves, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7373      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Phillip Charles Reeves, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Reeves

        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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reeves has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reeves’ motion to dismiss his state charges,

        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

                                                     2