Joseph McFadden v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional, No. 12-8162 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8162 JOSEPH LEE MCFADDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-01486-TLW) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Lee McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph court s judge order and petition. or judge Lee McFadden accepting denying relief to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue the seeks absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
