Robert Cason v. Nancy Rouse

Filing 920081120

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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No. 08-7116 affirmed; No. 08-7607 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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