UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6483


HALEY J. THOMAS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden ECI,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cv-01344-PMD)


Submitted:   September 28, 2010           Decided:   October 4, 2010


Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Haley J. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Haley J. Thomas 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 (2006) petition.                                  The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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) (2006).                   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,       

,    484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 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.                          

.         We     have   independently         reviewed       the    record    and

conclude      that    Thomas       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
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3