Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. J. McFadden


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-04690-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999588614]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6181]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6181 SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN J. MCFADDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:14-cv-04690-RMG) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing this prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 28 a U.S.C. absent “a 2254 certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue § petition appealability. without 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” of (2012) showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Cabbagestalk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 contentions Filed: 05/22/2015 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?