                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6749


TEX B. SIMMONS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility; PATRICK
MORRISEY, The Attorney General of the State of West Virginia,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00003-JPB)


Submitted: October 23, 2018                                   Decided: October 26, 2018


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn R. McDermott, Kevin David Mills, MILLS MCDERMOTT, PLLC, Martinsburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Shannon Frederick Kiser, Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Tex B. Simmons 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, 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 Simmons 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 before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2
