UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7130
BERNARD MCFADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT RICHBURG, Investigator for
Sumter County Police Department; HENRY MCMASTER, South
Carolina Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(3:10-cv-01544-RBH)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 McFadden 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3