Robert Wardrick v. US, No. 09-6561 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6561 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JAMES H. GREEN, Cop or Prosecutor; ALEXANDRA WILLIAM, Judge; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective; CHRISTIAN M. KAHL; SUZANNE MENSH; THOMAS LOVE, ATF Agent; ANDRE DAVIS; MARVIN J. GARBIS; THOMAS MICHAEL DIBIAGIO, Prosecutor; DEBRA LYNN DWYER, Prosecutor; MARY SAMPSON; JOHN KELLY; LIEUTENANT GEARHEART; SHAUN GARRITY; DENNIS W. SHEDD; ROBERT B. KING; ALLYSON K. DUNCAN; HENRY WILLIAM; HARVEY LAPIN; PATRICIA S. CONNOR; WARDEN OF BECKLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00121-JFM) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick appeals from a district court order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the memorandum and the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Wardrick v. United States, No. 1:09-cv-00121-JFM (D. Md. Jan 26, 2009). To the extent Wardrick s complaint was a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, we construe Wardrick s notice of appeal and his informal brief filed in this court as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) discoverable establish by by newly due discovered diligence, clear and evidence, that convincing would not be evidence previously sufficient that, but to for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant Wardrick s guilty claims of do the not offense. satisfy 28 either U.S.C.A. of § these 2255(h). criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.