UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7050


DAVID D’ANTE HILL,

                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-00383-MSD-FBS)


Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 28, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David D’Ante Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              David D’Ante Hill 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        Hill     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