                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7210


KEVIN PITTS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:18-cv-00291-JFA)


Submitted: February 21, 2019                                 Decided: February 26, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Pitts, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kevin Pitts 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 Pitts 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2
