UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6429


ANTHONY DAWAIN SHAW,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00126-MSD-TEM)


Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 27, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Dawain Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Richmond,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Anthony      Dawain      Shaw        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      (2006)

petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (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      Shaw    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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                               2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3