UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6467


ALFRED ALLEN HARPER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.      John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00707-JAG-RCY)


Submitted:   September 29, 2016           Decided:   October 4, 2016


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alfred Allen Harper, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan           Elizabeth
Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF            VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Alfred Allen Harper seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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.           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

Harper has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we deny

a   certificate       of     appealability      and   dismiss      the    appeal.         We

further    deny       Harper’s    motion      to   amend     his       complaint.        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