# Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewis

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 28, 2014 · 563 F. App'x 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658494

## Case

- **Full name:** Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shareese KESS-LEWIS; Randolph T. Lewis, Respondents-Appellees. in Re Cargyle Brown Solomon, Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 28, 2014
- **Citations:** 563 F. App'x 262
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658494

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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No. 13-8025, Dismissed; No. 13-8028, Affirmed by unpublished per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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658494. Public record. Not legal advice.