Gattis v. Solomen , 256 F. App'x 617 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6990
CHRISTOPHER DEON GATTIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SUPERINTENDENT LAWRENCE SOLOMEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00598-RAE)
Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Deon Gattis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Deon Gattis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gattis has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal. We further deny Appellant’s motions for a stay pending
appeal and for discretionary leave to 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
*
The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 2 -