                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7867


JAMES JAMAL WILLIAMS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, MCCI,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-01360-MGL)


Submitted:   May 14, 2015                     Decided:    June 2, 2015


Before MOTZ and    GREGORY,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Jamal Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Kaycie Smith Timmons,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Donald  John  Zelenka,  Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      James Jamal Williams 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

Williams has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, 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
