UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6370


DAVID MICHAEL SMART,

                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. (2:14-cv-00045-AWA-DEM)


Submitted:   August 27, 2015                 Decided:   August 31, 2015


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Michael Smart, Appellant Pro Se.           Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      David Michael Smart 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

Smart 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