                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7356


RICHARD KITT,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

LEVERN COHEN,

                      Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-02876-TMC)


Submitted:   October 11, 2012             Decided:   October 16, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard Kitt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Richard      Kitt   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 (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)(A)

(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 Kitt 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



                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
