James Williamson v. Theodis Beck

Filing 920081224

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7711

JAMES CURTIS WILLIAMSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00022-WO-PTS)

Submitted:

December 16, 2008

Decided:

December 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Curtis Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James Curtis Williamson seeks to appeal the district court's judge order and accepting the recommendation on his 28 of the magistrate (2000)

denying

relief

U.S.C.

§ 2254

petition. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2000).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not made the motion requisite for a showing. certificate Accordingly, of we deny and

Williamson's

appealability

dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the

2

facts

and

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately argument

presented not

in aid

the the

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

3