Filed: Aug. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7050 GLENN A. FROEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Baltimore County Detention Center, Towson; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney Gen- eral of the State of Maryland; LILA NOBEL, Division of Parole and Probation; W. ROLAND KNAPP, Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 559-L) Submitted: August 13
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7050 GLENN A. FROEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Baltimore County Detention Center, Towson; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney Gen- eral of the State of Maryland; LILA NOBEL, Division of Parole and Probation; W. ROLAND KNAPP, Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 559-L) Submitted: August 13,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7050
GLENN A. FROEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Baltimore County Detention Center,
Towson; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney Gen-
eral of the State of Maryland; LILA NOBEL,
Division of Parole and Probation; W. ROLAND
KNAPP, Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96-
559-L)
Submitted: August 13, 1996 Decided: August 30, 1996
Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn A. Froeman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Froeman appeals from the district court's marginal order deny-
ing his motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss.
The district court properly denied injunctive relief. Federal
courts may not award declaratory or injunctive relief that would
affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
circumstances involving federally protected rights. Younger v.
Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). The record shows that Froeman was
still seeking relief in the state appellate courts when the dis-
trict court denied his motions for injunctive relief. See Huffman
v. Pursue, Ltd.,
420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975). Furthermore, there are
no extenuating circumstances in this case entitling Froeman to
injunctive relief.
We deny a certificate of appealability and 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