Joshua Jordan v. SC Corrections Office of Investigations ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7211 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7211
JOSHUA BRYAN JORDAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE; MATTHEW B. WATSON;
RICHARD M. DARLING,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:23-cv-04720-DCN)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Bryan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7211 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Bryan Jordan, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing without prejudice
Jordan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, and denying his motion for a declaratory judgment. 1
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 Jordan has not made
the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
1
Jordan was detained when he filed his § 2241 petition. Jordan later secured bond,
and according to publicly available information, his state criminal charges remain pending.
2
Jordan’s primary complaint on appeal is that the district court failed to explain
why it overruled his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We
are satisfied, however, that the district court was entitled to summarily overrule Jordan’s
objections in performing its de novo review. Put simply, Jordan’s objections failed to show
any error in the magistrate judge’s application of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
or the magistrate judge’s analysis of Jordan’s request for removal to federal court.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7211 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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