Corvin Young v. William Parrish

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7009 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/11/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-7009

CORVIN JAUWAN YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHIEF DEPUTY WILLIAM PARRISH, Acting Sheriff, Respondent - Appellee.

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

Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:25-cv-06838-MGL)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: June 11, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corvin J. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7009 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/11/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Corvin Jauwan Young, a South Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Young’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)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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