Court Opinion

ID: 9397993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:48.621576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.497069
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6206      Doc: 5         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6206

        EDWARD G. JONES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:22-cv-02161-BHH)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                               Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Edward G. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6206         Doc: 5      Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Edward G. Jones, a state detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Jones’ 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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