                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7361


DARTAGNAN SHALIL SIMMONS,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD   W.    CLARK,     Director   Virginia     Department    of
Corrections,

                        Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00309-MSD-LRL)


Submitted:   November 19, 2015              Decided:   November 24, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dartagnan Shalil Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew
Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dartagnan     Shalil       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, 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
