Olandio Ray Workman v. Director Greenville County Detention Center , 704 F. App'x 273 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6951
OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GREENVILLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
13TH; JOHN VANDERMOSTEN, Assistant Administrative Director; MR.
BODIFORD, Deputy Director,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-00767-RBH)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without
prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 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)
(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Workman has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Workman’s motion to dismiss the
indictment, 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
3