UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7276


DAVID EUGENE MUNDAY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN DAVID BALLARD,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.     Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00135-FPS-DJJ)


Submitted:   November 7, 2013             Decided:   December 4, 2013


Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Eugene Munday, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg,
Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            David        Eugene     Munday   seeks      to    appeal        the   district

court’s     order        adopting    the     magistrate           judge’s     report        and

recommendation 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 Munday 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



                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3