Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Warden J. McFadden , 626 F. App'x 435 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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
3
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
4