Filed: June 5, 2002 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 02-6035(L) (CA-01-427-MJG, CA-01-2918-MJG)

Lewis Redden, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

John P. Galley, etc., et al., Respondents - Appellees.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed May 14, 2002, as follows: On page 3, last line of the opinon -- the case number is corrected to read “No. 02-6190.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6035

LEWIS REDDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 02-6190

LEWIS REDDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

CHARLES F. MADES, Sheriff; PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICER, John Doe; PROPERTY OFFICER, John Doe; PATROL COMMANDER, John Doe; RANDY WILKINSON, First Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 427-MJG, CA-01-2918-MJG) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

No. 02-6035 dismissed and No. 02-6190 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Redden, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Tracey Brown Dawson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Lewis Redden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) (No. 02-6035) and the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint (No. 02-6190). We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 02-6035, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Redden v. Galley, No. CA-01-427-MJG (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2001). In No. 02-6190, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Redden v. Mades, No. CA-01-2918-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2002). 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.

No. 02-6035 - DISMISSED No. 02-6190 - AFFIRMED