UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-6018


BILLY RAHEEM FORTUNE,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                        Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00687-AWA-TEM)


Submitted:   February 12, 2015             Decided:   February 19, 2015


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Raheem Fortune, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Richmond,   Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Billy      Raheem     Fortune       seeks   to     appeal      the    district

court’s    order      accepting      the     recommendation          of    the    magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Fortune 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 contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3