Metkel Alana v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of Va. DOC

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 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

-- 2 of 2 --