Kenneth Stradley v. Warden, Evans Correctional, No. 09-7866 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7866 KENNETH ALAN STRADLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-01875-GRA) Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: April 12, 2010 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth court s order petition. Alan Stradley denying relief seeks on his to 28 appeal the U.S.C. § 2254 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue district a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is 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 Stradley has not made the requisite showing. conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the We facts and We 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.