UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6681


DWAYNE N. KENDALL-EL,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT C. LEWIS,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00191-TDS-LPA)


Submitted:   January 20, 2011             Decided:   February 17, 2011


Before NIEMEYER and     GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dwayne N. Kendall-El, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Dwayne        N.    Kendall-El            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      Kendall-El             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

                                                    2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3