Court Opinion

ID: 4157477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-03 19:02:18.396614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.069038
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3