James Edward Rose, Jr. v. RANDY DEMORY, Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6309
JAMES EDWARD ROSE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDY DEMORY, Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HONORABLE D. L. JEFFERSON; SHERIFF
DUANE LEWIS,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00130-HMH)
Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Rose, Jr., a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Rose’s 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)).
Because Rose has not challenged the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling in
his informal brief, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of
Rule 34(b) and reiterating that our review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief).
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

-- 3 of 3 --