UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6350


THOMAS COVINGTON, JR.,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

GEORGE KENWORTHY,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02044-FL)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,     Chief   Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    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.                          See 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).         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 Covington has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.




                                            2
            We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions   are   adequately   presented    in   the    materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3