                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7839


CHARLES THOMAS WEST,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

CARLTON JOYNER,

                       Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02191-FL)


Submitted:   April 16, 2015                 Decided:   April 20, 2015


Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Thomas West, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh, North  Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Charles Thomas West seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing       as     untimely     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

West 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
