Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07329/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07329-1/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UNPUBLISHED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. 18-7329

METKEL ALANA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of Va. DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00205-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: December 12, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7329 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Metkel Alana seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Alana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive 

and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Jones v. Braxton, 392 

F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2012). 

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 (2000); 

see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Alana has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7329 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 2 of 2