UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-6310


CARL NELSON, II,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.    John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00086-JPB-RWT)


Submitted:   July 21, 2016                 Decided:   July 22, 2016


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carl Nelson, II, Appellant Pro Se. Derek A. Knopp, Laura Young,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Carl Nelson, II, 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

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

Nelson’s motion for 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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3