Brian Austin v. Warden Gail Watts ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-6660      Doc: 8        Filed: 11/23/2022     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6660
    BRIAN KEITH AUSTIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN GAIL WATTS; STATES ATTORNEY BEVERLY SMITH,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00742-DLB)
    Submitted: November 17, 2022                                Decided: November 23, 2022
    Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian Keith Austin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-6660       Doc: 8         Filed: 11/23/2022      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian Keith Austin, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing without prejudice his 
    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, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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)).
    Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Austin’s informal brief, we
    conclude that Austin has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v.
    Lightsey, 
    775 F.3d 170
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document;
    under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6660

Filed Date: 11/23/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/24/2022