John Garvin v. Chuck Wright

583 F. App'x 287
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 29, 2014
Docket14-6431
StatusUnpublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 583 F. App'x 287 (John Garvin v. Chuck Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Garvin v. Chuck Wright, 583 F. App'x 287 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 constitu *288 tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garvin’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

JOHNSON v. BRAGG
D. South Carolina, 2023
Garvin v. Cohen
D. South Carolina, 2022
Sinclair v. United States
D. South Carolina, 2021
McCombs v. State of South Carolina
D. South Carolina, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
583 F. App'x 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-garvin-v-chuck-wright-ca4-2014.