UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6431
JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHUCK WRIGHT; MAJOR NEAL URCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-00442-DCN)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina;
Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Dupont, SPARTANBURG COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition
Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee. 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 Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Garvin’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for
appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
2
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