                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-7034


JONATHAN TYRONE HOUGH,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                        Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00407-NCT-JEP)


Submitted:   September 23, 2014         Decided:   September 26, 2014


Before NIEMEYER and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jonathan Tyrone Hough, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jonathan      Tyrone    Hough     seeks      to    appeal    the    district

court’s    order      accepting       the   recommendation          of   the    magistrate

judge and dismissing 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,        529   U.S.     473,    484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.                           Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hough 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
