William Dawson v. Stan Burtt, No. 08-7842 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7842 WILLIAM DOUGLAS DAWSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN STAN BURTT, Respondent Appellee, and HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:06-cv-03205-SB) Submitted: November 24, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Douglas Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Douglas Dawson seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and petition. or judge accepting denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2000) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue the 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 § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that by of (2000). demonstrating any district denial assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Dawson 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 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.