Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06181/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06181-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk
Appellant
J. McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6181

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. MCFADDEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-04690-RMG)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without 

prejudice. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 

Cabbagestalk 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 

Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6181 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3