Court Opinion

ID: 9411164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:42.087501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:04.878339
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7232      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7232

        MICHAEL T. BRAXTON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF THE ANDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-02806-HMH)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael T. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7232      Doc: 10          Filed: 07/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael T. Braxton, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Braxton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition, which sought relief from his confinement pursuant to a state civil commitment

        proceeding. 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 Braxton has not made

        the requisite showing. Specifically, the district court properly applied Younger v. Harris,

        401 U.S. 37 (1971), which mandates abstention under certain circumstances. While

        Braxton asserts that he was prejudiced by a delay in his state commitment proceedings

        rendering Younger inapplicable, we find that the delays were not unreasonable given the

        COVID-19 pandemic and other circumstances. Moreover, following the district court’s

        ruling, the state court committed Braxton following a jury trial, which further undercuts

        any claim of prejudice and moots many of Braxton’s claims. Accordingly, we deny a

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7232      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/24/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        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