Hazel Stoudemire v. A. Padula, No. 08-7818 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7818 HAZEL STOUDEMIRE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. J. PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03272-HFF) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hazel Stoudemire, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hazel Stoudemire seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a appealability. substantial right. jurists See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 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). have independently reviewed the record and Stoudemire has not made the requisite showing. conclude We that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Stoudemire s motion for appointment of counsel, 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.