The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6137
DARRYL T. BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LINDA THOMAS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:15-cv-03079-HMH)
Submitted: August 19, 2016 Decided: September 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl T. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl T. Brown seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and transferring it to the Eastern District
of Tennessee. Because the claims Brown raised in his motion do
not fit within the savings clause of § 2255, we hold that the
district court properly found that Brown’s motion could only be
considered under § 2255. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th
Cir. 2000). Thus, the transfer order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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