UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7468


RODNEY WILLIAM PITTS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

FRANK BISHOP, JR.; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:16-cv-01493-JFM)


Submitted:   January 31, 2017              Decided:   February 3, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney William Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Rodney William Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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

Pitts 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 presented




                                    2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED




                                3