Weldon Stewart, Jr. v. McKither Bodison, No. 10-6750 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6750 WELDON W. STEWART, JR., a/k/a Weldon Stewart, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00842-SB) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Weldon W. Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Weldon W. Stewart, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order magistrate adopting judge (2006) petition. and the report denying and relief on recommendation his 28 of U.S.C. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent § 2254 The order is not appealable unless a circuit See 28 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. not the a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the 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.
