Court Opinion

ID: 4324585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-25 19:01:34.455863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:30.662300
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6431

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                    Respondent - Appellee,

             and

STATE OF SOUTH                CAROLINA;        SCOTTY       BODIFORD;      JOHN
VANDERMOSTEN,

                    Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-03046-RBH)

Submitted: October 23, 2018                                   Decided: October 25, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without

prejudice on 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 (2000); see Miller-

El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Workman 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