UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6810


FRANK A. BLOUNT,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,    Director   of   the   Virginia   Department   of
Corrections,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00331-RBS-DEM)


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


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frank A. Blount, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Frank A. Blount seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely 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    Blount     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