Gattis v. Solomen, No. 07-6990 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6990 CHRISTOPHER DEON GATTIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT LAWRENCE SOLOMEN,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.* judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 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 contentions argument because the facts and legal 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 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - by a
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
