Jerome McFadden v. Warden Bush

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 0:13-cv-03024-BHH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999629198]. Mailed to: Jerome McFadden. [15-6614]

Appeal: 15-6614

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6614

JEROME MCFADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BUSH,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(0:13-cv-03024-BHH)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6614

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerome McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

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
McFadden 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