                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 10-6605


FREEMAN WRAY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

CECILIA R. REYNOLDS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.      R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-02676-RBH)


Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   September 2, 2010


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Freeman Wray, Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Freeman       Wray    seeks       to    appeal      the   district    court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.                          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2006).     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) (2006).                        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        Wray     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



                                                 2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
