Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06551/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06551-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk
Appellant
J. McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6551

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. MCFADDEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 15-7161

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. MCFADDEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, 

Magistrate Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW); Richard Mark Gergel, 

District Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Appeal: 15-6551 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6551 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on Cabbagestalk’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition, denying various motions to amend and for recusal, and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 

These orders are 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 for a 

certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a 

Appeal: 15-6551 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

all of Cabbagestalk’s pending motions. 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

Appeal: 15-6551 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 4 of 4