Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999277158-2] in 13-8025; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02436-PWG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999325208]. Mailed to: Solomon. [13-8025, 13-8028]

Appeal: 13-8025

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8025

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHAREESE KESS-LEWIS; RANDOLPH T. LEWIS,
Respondents - Appellees.

No. 13-8028

In re: CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,
Petitioner.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-02436-PWG; 8:13-mc-00584; 8:13-cv-03793-PWG)

Submitted:

March 25, 2014

Decided:

March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

No. 13-8025, Dismissed; No. 13-8028, Affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 13-8025

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-8025

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Cargyle
court’s

order

Brown

denying

Solomon
relief

seeks

on

her

to
28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2012)

petition (No. 13-8025) and the order imposing on her a prefiling
injunction (No. 13-8028).

We dismiss Solomon’s appeal from the

denial of her § 2254 petition and affirm the issuance of the
prefiling injunction.
The order dismissing Solomon’s § 2254 petition is not
appealable

unless

certificate

of

(2012).

a

circuit

justice

appealability.

See

28

or

judge

U.S.C.

issues

a

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
at 484-85.

3

Slack, 529 U.S.

Appeal: 13-8025

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We have independently reviewed the record on appeal in
No. 13-8025 and conclude that Solomon has not made the requisite
showing.

Accordingly,

we

deny

Solomon’s

motion

for

a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Further, in No. 13-8028, we conclude that the district
court

did

injunction.

not

abuse

its

discretion

in

imposing

prefiling

Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,

817 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review).
we affirm.

a

Accordingly,

We deny Solomon’s pending motions seeking a writ of

habeas corpus and an emergency hearing.

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.

No. 13-8025, DISMISSED;
No. 13-8028, AFFIRMED

4