Curtis Sangster v. Wake County Detention Center , 687 F. App'x 276 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7773
CURTIS LOUIS SANGSTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WAKE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02114-D)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis L. Sangster, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Louis Sangster, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without
prejudice 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 Sangster 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