Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06990/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6990 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*

The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

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

Appeal: 07-6990 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 2 of 2