UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 14-6504


BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN TIM RILEY,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(5:13-cv-01866-DCN)


Submitted:   August 28, 2014                 Decided:   September 2, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant            Pro Se.    Christopher D.
Florian, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT           OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2012) petition.             The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28    U.S.C.     § 2253(c)(1)(A)           (2012).             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)

(2012).    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 Lisenby 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



                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3