Court Opinion

ID: 9881796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:01:12.483321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.093840
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6287      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6287

        ANTONIO DIEARGO PATTERSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SHERIFF KRISTIN GRAZIANO,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-00411-RMG)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Antonio Dieargo Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6287         Doc: 12       Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antonio Dieargo Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Patterson’s

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which Patterson sought release from his confinement

        pursuant to a state civil commitment 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson has not

        made the requisite showing. 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

                                                      2