                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7463


JARVIS L. CANSLOR,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD   W.  CLARKE,    Director,   Virginia   Department   of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00116-MSD-LRL)


Submitted:   February 25, 2015            Decided:    March 3, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jarvis L. Canslor, Appellant Pro Se.  Steven         Andrew Witmer,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,          Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jarvis L. Canslor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and he has filed

an    application        to    proceed   in   forma      pauperis.        The    district

court’s 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 Canslor 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

                                              2
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




                                  3
