Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07270/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07270-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7270

JOHN P. ALLISON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00144-RBS-LRL)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7270 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John P. Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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 

Allison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-7270 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7270 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 3 of 3