UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7257


ROBERT K. STEWART,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

FRANK PERRY,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00435-LCB-JEP)


Submitted:   January 24, 2017             Decided:   February 9, 2017


Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert K. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Robert     K.    Stewart    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

Stewart has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny Stewart’s motion for 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

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3