James Williamson v. Theodis Beck, No. 08-7711 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7711 JAMES CURTIS WILLIAMSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition. or accepting denying relief recommendation on his 28 of the U.S.C. magistrate § 2254 (2000) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue the absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable 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 the debatable or 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 Williamson s the motion dismiss the appeal. requisite for a showing. certificate Accordingly, of we appealability deny and We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.