USCA4 Appeal: 23-6978 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6978

GRANT PAUL DALTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALAN Z. THORNBURG, Judge, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00039-MR)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grant Paul Dalton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6978 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Grant Paul Dalton, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 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 Dalton 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