Strickland v. Beck
Strickland v. Beck
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.