Nathan Holden v. Unnamed Respondent

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999758395-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02067-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836896]. Mailed to: N. Holden. [15-7941]

Appeal: 15-7941

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7941

NATHAN L. HOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNNAMED RESPONDENT;
NORTH CAROLINA,

PATRICK

MCCRORY,

Governor;

STATE

OF

Respondents - Appellees.

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-02067-D)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan L. Holden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7941

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nathan
appeal

the

L.

district

U.S.C. § 2241
unless

a

Holden,

appealability.

state

court’s

(2012)

circuit

a

order

petition.

justice

pretrial

or

detainee,

denying

The
judge

relief

order

is

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

not

seeks
on

his

to
28

appealable

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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.

By failing to challenge the district court’s dispositive
holdings in his informal brief, Holden has waived his right to
challenge the district court’s order.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Our independent review of the record nonetheless confirms the
district
leave

to

court’s
proceed

dispositive
in

forma

holdings.
pauperis,
2

Accordingly,
deny

a

we

deny

certificate

of

Appeal: 15-7941

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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