USCA4 Appeal: 22-6660 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6660

BRIAN KEITH AUSTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN GAIL WATTS; STATES ATTORNEY BEVERLY SMITH,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00742-DLB)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Keith Austin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6660 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Keith Austin, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his

petition. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Austin’s informal brief, we

conclude that Austin has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v.

Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document;

under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 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

2