Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. J. McFadden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?