UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7941
NATHAN L. HOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNNAMED RESPONDENT; PATRICK MCCRORY, Governor; STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02067-D)
Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan L. Holden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan L. Holden, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief 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.
By failing to challenge the district court’s dispositive
holdings in his informal brief, Holden has waived his right to
challenge the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Our independent review of the record nonetheless confirms the
district court’s dispositive holdings. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
2
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