                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 10-6829


SAMUEL JEROME LEWIS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.     G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cv-02881-GRA)


Submitted:   August 26, 2010             Decided:   September 7, 2010


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Jerome Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Samuel      Jerome      Lewis    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       Lewis   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
