The opinion
UNPUBLISHED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No. 13-8025, Dismissed; No. 13-8028, Affirmed by unpublished per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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Cargyle Brown Solomon seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 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 a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012). 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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
3
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 not abuse its discretion in imposing a prefiling
injunction. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,
817 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly,
we affirm. 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