Dominic Foote v. George Solomon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999708463-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00877-WO-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788557]. Mailed to: Foote. [15-7759]

Appeal: 15-7759

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7759

DOMINIC EUGENE FOOTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE T. SOLOMON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00877-WO-JLW)

Submitted:

March 23, 2016

Decided:

April 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominic Eugene Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7759

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dominic Eugene Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Foote 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

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-7759

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3