Case Name: Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland State Attorney General; Charles Felts, Warden, FDC Oakdale, Louisiana; Benedict I. Ferro, Baltimore INS District Director; Christine G. Davis, New Orleans INS District Director; United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-10
Citations: 45 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 02-6721
Parties: Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland State Attorney General; Charles Felts, Warden, FDC Oakdale, Louisiana; Benedict I. Ferro, Baltimore INS District Director; Christine G. Davis, New Orleans INS District Director; United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland State Attorney General; Charles Felts, Warden, FDC Oakdale, Louisiana; Benedict I. Ferro, Baltimore INS District Director; Christine G. Davis, New Orleans INS District Director; United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-6721.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 5, 2002.
Decided Sept. 10, 2002.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Idokogi has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Idokogi v. Ashcroft, No. CA-01-4039-L (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2002; Apr. 19, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). This dismissal is without prejudice to Idokogi's right to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). 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.