Stacy Pringle v. Joseph McFadden , 683 F. App'x 239 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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