Weldon Holtzclaw, Jr. v. Warden of the Greenville County Detention Center

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6255 WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:24-cv-07496-DCC) Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Holtzclaw’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Holtzclaw’s informal brief, we conclude that Holtzclaw has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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