Antonio Tisdale v. State of South Carolina, No. 09-7920 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7920 ANTONIO D. TISDALE, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cv-01319-PMD) Submitted: May 17, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio D. Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio court s order petition. or judge D. Tisdale denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his district (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue seeks a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that any district of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tisdale has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.