Robert Cason v. Nancy Rouse

Filing 920081120

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7116 ROBERT JAMES CASON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NANCY ROUSE, Warden; SALLY D. ADKINS, Chairperson; STEVEN P. LEMMEY, Investigative Counsel; STATE OF MARYLAND COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES, Respondents - Appellees. No. 08-7607 ROBERT JAMES CASON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NANCY ROUSE, Warden; SALLY D. ADKINS, Chairperson; STEVEN P. LEMMEY, Investigative Counsel; STATE OF MARYLAND COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01068-AMD) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. No. 08-7116 affirmed; No. 08-7607 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert James Cason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In seeks to these consolidated district appeals, Robert James Cason without appeal the court's orders denying prejudice relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition and denying his civil rights complaint. That part of the order denying his 2254 petition is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent "a See 28 A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2000). of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by U.S.C. standard 2253(c)(2) by any satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of find the that constitutional claims district court debatable wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Cason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the order denying 2254 relief. With respect to his civil rights complaint, we have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum and order and affirm the order on the reasoning of the district 3 court. See Cason v. Warden, No. 1:08-cv-01068-AMD (D. Md. June 4, 2008). Accordingly, we affirm the district court order dismissing the civil rights complaint and deny a certificate of appealability 2254 relief. and dismiss the appeal from the order denying We also deny Cason's motion for appointment of We dispense with oral counsel and for production of documents. argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 08-7116 AFFIRMED; No. 08-7607 DISMISSED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?