                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7592


TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a Terence Bryan, a/k/a T. Terell
Bryan,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL, and or responsible officials,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cv-02117-TLW).


Submitted:   January 18, 2011             Decided:   January 28, 2011


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Terence     Terell      Bryan       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 (2006)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a    certificate        of    appealability.                 28   U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).             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) (2006).                        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       Bryan   has    not       made    the       requisite      showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
