UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-6276


DWAIN FERRELL,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BRAD PERRITT,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02013-D)


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


Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dwain Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Dwain Ferrell 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 (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

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

a certificate of appealability, deny Ferrell’s motions to appoint

counsel and for the issuance of a subpoena, 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