Bernard McFadden v. David Dunlap

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000016648]. Mailed to: Bernard McFadden. [16-7540]

Appeal: 16-7540

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7540

BERNARD MCFADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
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
Judge. (2:15-cv-04674-JMC)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7540

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden, a South Carolina state prisoner, seeks to
appeal

the

district

court’s

orders

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

denying

relief

on

his

28

The orders are not appealable
judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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 McFadden’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the

2

Appeal: 16-7540

facts

Doc: 6

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3