USCA4 Appeal: 24-7069 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7069

JOSHUA LYNN ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

MICHAEL KIMBLER,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:24-cv-04733-DCC)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Lynn Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7069 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Lynn Robinson, a South Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

without prejudice Robinson’s

petition on abstention grounds pursuant to

Younger v. Harris,

(1971). 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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson 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

2