UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6145

NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff; WAKE COUNTY JAIL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-hc-02141-FL)

Submitted: June 29, 2018 Decided: July 27, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel R. Webb, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel R. Webb, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Webb’s motion for the appointment of counsel, deny as moot Webb’s motion for release pending the outcome of the appeal, 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