Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Strickland v. Beck, 02-7808 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7808 Visitors: 34
Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7808 DAVID EMANUEL STRICKLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-01-1132-1) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circu
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 02-7808



DAVID EMANUEL STRICKLAND,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina
Department of Correction,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-01-1132-1)


Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 25, 2003


Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Emanuel Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

      David Emanuel Strickland seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We   have   independently   reviewed    the   record   and   conclude   that

Strickland has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
123 S. Ct. 1029

(U.S. Feb. 25, 2003).         Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.    See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).     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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer