UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-8000


SEAN DERON WELLS,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

                       Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.   Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cv-01652-CMC)


Submitted:   April 21, 2016                 Decided:   April 26, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sean Deron Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Sean Deron Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate         of         appealability.             28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).           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) (2012).                   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

Wells has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and   dismiss    the        appeal.       We    dispense      with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3