UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6906


JOHN H. HART,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:09-cv-00997-HMH)


Submitted:   September 23, 2010           Decided:   October 14, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John H. Hart, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant   Attorney  General,   Melody  Jane   Brown,  Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               John    H.    Hart    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 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        Hart    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