John Garvin v. Chuck Wright, No. 14-6431 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6431 JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHUCK WRIGHT; MAJOR NEAL URCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00442-DCN) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Dupont, SPARTANBURG COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John court s order Dwayne Garvin accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district 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. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 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. 2 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
