USCA4 Appeal: 23-6206 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6206

EDWARD G. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.

Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:22-cv-02161-BHH)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward G. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6206 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Edward G. Jones, a state detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Jones’ 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 Jones 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