                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7405


TERRANCE MALCOM TOMPKINS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN, Walden/Stevenson Correctional Institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-04340-DCN)


Submitted:   February 23, 2017            Decided:   February 28, 2017


Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrance Malcom Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.         Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Terrance     Malcolm       Tompkins        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

Tompkins 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
