                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7345


LANDRECUS COWAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:10-cv-02100-RBH)


Submitted:   February 23, 2012            Decided:   February 27, 2012


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Landrecus Cowan, Appellant Pro Se.   William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant  Attorney   General,  Donald   John  Zelenka,  Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Landrecus Cowan 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    Cowan       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
