                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-8038


MICHAEL DORSEY NEEDHAM,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

KEITH   WHITENER,    Administrator,    Alexander     Correctional
Institution,

                        Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00104-FDW)


Submitted:   April 24, 2014                 Decided:    April 28, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Dorsey Needham, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh, North Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Michael Dorsey Needham seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    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 Needham 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
