Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewis, No. 13-8025 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8025 CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SHAREESE KESS-LEWIS; RANDOLPH T. LEWIS,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 No. 13-8025, Dismissed; No. 13-8028, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Cargyle court s order Brown denying Solomon relief seeks on her to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2254 (2012) petition (No.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 certificate of (2012). a circuit justice appealability. See 28 or judge U.S.C. issues a § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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. at 484-85. 3 Slack, 529 U.S. 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 injunction. not abuse its discretion in imposing prefiling Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). we affirm. a Accordingly, 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

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.