USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6309 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 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