Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Warden J. McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to remand case [999682038-2]; denying Motion to clarify [999646244-2]; denying Motion transfer case [999638538-2] in 15-7161, denying Motion transfer case [999636249-2] in 15-7161; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999636250-2] in 15-7161 Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722189]. Mailed to: Shaheen Cabbagestalk. [15-6551, 15-7161]

Appeal: 15-6551

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6551

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

No. 15-7161

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Kaymani Daniels West,
Magistrate Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW); Richard Mark Gergel,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Appeal: 15-6551

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6551

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

on

Cabbagestalk’s

28

U.S.C.

§

2254

(2012)

petition, denying various motions to amend and for recusal, and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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
certificate

has
of

not

made

the

appealability.
3

requisite

showing

Accordingly,

we

for

a

deny

a

Appeal: 15-6551

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
all of Cabbagestalk’s pending motions.

We deny

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

4