UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6414


WILLIAM A. SEAWRIGHT,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-00950-RMG)


Submitted:   July 28, 2011                  Decided:   August 2, 2011


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William A. Seawright, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            William       A.    Seawright         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.                               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 Seawright 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