UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-6925


LEVI BING, JR.,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ANTHONY PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.      R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-01759-RBH)


Submitted:   November 17, 2010              Decided:   January 13, 2011


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Levi Bing, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Levi Bing, Jr. 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        Bing     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