                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6710


SAMUEL GRIFFIN,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

MS. RANSOM,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02149-FL)


Submitted: October 13, 2017                                   Decided: October 18, 2017


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.  Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Samuel Griffin 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 Griffin 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 presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2
