Robert Cason v. Nancy Rouse, No. 08-7116 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7116 ROBERT JAMES CASON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NANCY ROUSE, Warden; SALLY D. ADKINS,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 No. 08-7116 affirmed; No. 08-7607 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In seeks to these appeal consolidated the district appeals, court s Robert orders James denying Cason without prejudice relief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 constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional A certificate of appealability will substantial right. 28 this by showing U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims See 28 by that any district denial of (2000). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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). 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 counsel and for production of documents. We 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. 08-7116 AFFIRMED; No. 08-7607 DISMISSED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
