                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-7009


BERNARD MCFADDEN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;        HENRY   MCMASTER,   South   Carolina
Attorney General,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.      J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-02394-JMC)


Submitted:   October 23, 2013              Decided:    October 25, 2013


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bernard McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing       without     prejudice     his    28     U.S.C.       §    2254     (2006)

petition and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion.    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 McFadden 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
