Corvin Jauwan Young v. CHIEF DEPUTY WILLIAM PARRISH, Acting Sheriff

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-7009
CORVIN JAUWAN YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHIEF DEPUTY WILLIAM PARRISH, Acting Sheriff,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:25-cv-06838-MGL)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: June 11, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corvin J. Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Corvin Jauwan Young, a South Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Young’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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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 of 2 --