UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6441


WAYNE STEVEN TIPPETT,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN MCCALL,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.       Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00593-HMH)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                   Decided:   June 1, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wayne Steven Tippett, Appellant Pro Se.     Roy F. Laney, RILEY,
POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Wayne        Steven   Tippett       seeks   to        appeal    the   district

court’s    order    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.                            See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Tippett 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