John Lee, Jr. v. J. Curran, Jr.

Filing 920090710

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8549

JOHN WESLEY LEE, JR., Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland; JON P. GALLEY, Warden; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN, Respondents ­ Appellees.

No. 09-6126

JOHN WESLEY LEE, JR., Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland; JON P. GALLEY, Warden; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN, Respondents ­ Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (8:00-cv-03323-CCB)

Submitted:

June 16, 2009

Decided:

July 10, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

No. 08-8549 dismissed; No. 09-6126 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wesley Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: John Wesley Lee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. motion for

He also appeals the district court's dismissal of his injunctive relief. We deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal in No. 08-8549 and affirm the district court in No. 09-6126. As to No. 08-8549, the district court's order is not appealable certificate (2006). unless of a circuit justice See 28 or judge issues a

appealability.

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 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). that We have independently not made reviewed the the record and

conclude

Lee

has

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

3

As to No. 09-6126, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. cv-03323-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2008).

Lee v. Shearin, No. 8:00We 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. No. 08-8549 DISMISSED No. 09-6126 AFFIRMED

4