Metkel Alana v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998782315]. Mailed to: Alana. [11-7274]

Appeal: 11-7274

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/07/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7274

METKEL ALANA,
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. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:

January 20, 2012

Decided:

February 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se.
Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7274

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/07/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Metkel

Alana

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
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) (2006).

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
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

2

Appeal: 11-7274

before

Document: 11

the

court

Date Filed: 02/07/2012

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3