Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stanley Williams v. Theodis Beck, 13-6731 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6731 Visitors: 61
Filed: Sep. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6731 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, SEC. OF CORRECTION; SCOTLAND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondents - Appellees. No. 13-6736 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT W. SMITH, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6731 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, SEC. OF CORRECTION; SCOTLAND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondents - Appellees. No. 13-6736 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT W. SMITH, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00492-TDS-WWD; 1:07-cv-00757-TDS-WWD) Submitted: August 27, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Stanley Lorenzo Williams challenges the district court’s order denying his letter/motion dated February 20, 2013. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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