UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 14-7566


MICHAEL RAYMOND HAWKINS,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

SID HARKLEROAD,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.  L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00600-LPA)


Submitted:   April 27, 2015                    Decided:    June 4, 2015


Before AGEE and      HARRIS,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.       Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael          Raymond     Hawkins     seeks       to    appeal       the    magistrate

judge’s         order     denying      relief   on    his    28    U.S.C.       § 2254       (2012)

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)(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

Hawkins has not made the requisite showing.                                    Accordingly, we

deny       a    certificate       of   appealability         and       dismiss       the    appeal.


       *
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).



                                                2
We dispense   with    oral   argument   because    the   facts   and   legal

contentions   are    adequately   presented   in   the   materials     before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                 DISMISSED




                                    3