UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7540
BERNARD MCFADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-04674-JMC)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Catoe Bigelow,
Stephen H. Lunsford, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden, a South Carolina state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The 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
McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny McFadden’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3