Filed: Apr. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6168 MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. VAN EVANS, Warden, Washington County Detention Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 3365-AMD) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6168 MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. VAN EVANS, Warden, Washington County Detention Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 3365-AMD) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael G..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6168
MICHAEL G. KESELICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
M. VAN EVANS, Warden, Washington County
Detention Center,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-
3365-AMD)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keselica
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). Accordingly, we deny Keselica’s motions to supplement the
record and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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
- 2 -