UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6650
NOBLE DREW ALI, a/k/a Joseph Lee McElveen Bey,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00340-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noble Drew Ali, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noble Drew Ali 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 Ali 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 also deny Ali’s motion for an
injunction. 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