Court Opinion

ID: 4467124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-23 20:00:29.365481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:54.389969
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                                             2