Stacy W. Pringle v. Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999983968-2] Originating case number: 5:15-cv-01571-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054351]. Mailed to: Stacy W. Pringle LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 205 Ridgeville, SC 29472-0000. [16-7456]

Appeal: 16-7456

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7456

STACY W. PRINGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cv-01571-JFA)

Submitted:

March 24, 2017

Decided:

April 3, 2017

Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacy W. Pringle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Columbia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7456

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stacy W. Pringle seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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
Pringle has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny the motion for 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
2

Appeal: 16-7456

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 04/03/2017

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3