Bernard McFadden v. David Dunlap
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999968310-2]. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-04674-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Bernard McFadden. [16-7540]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
DAVID DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
J. Michelle Childs, District
January 31, 2017
February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Christina Catoe Bigelow,
Stephen H. Lunsford, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Bernard McFadden, a South Carolina state prisoner, seeks to
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
The orders are not appealable
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
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
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.
deny McFadden’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Pg: 3 of 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?