Antonio Moss v. Johnston County Detention Center

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7065 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7065 ANTONIO MOSS, a/k/a Antonio Bey, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHNSTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-hc-02136-M-RJ) Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7065 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Moss, a North Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and on abstention grounds pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moss has not made the requisite showing. 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