Case Name: Samuel Johnson KANGERE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sheilah DAVENPORT, CEO, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-05
Citations: 372 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 09-8179
Parties: Samuel Johnson KANGERE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sheilah DAVENPORT, CEO, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Samuel Johnson KANGERE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sheilah DAVENPORT, CEO, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-8179.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 5, 2010.
Samuel Johnson Kangere, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Anne Barkan, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Johnson Kangere, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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 ap- pealability, 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.