Samuel Kangere v. Sheilah Davenport, No. 09-8179 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8179 SAMUEL JOHNSON KANGERE, Petitioner Appellant, v. SHEILAH DAVENPORT, CEO, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02116-AW) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Johnson Kangere, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Anne Barkan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel appeal the Johnson district Kangere, court s order U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. unless a circuit appealability. justice a or state prisoner, denying relief seeks on his to 28 The order is not appealable judge issues 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). a certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 that Kangere has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kangere s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2

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.