                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7026


JAMES SAMUEL HILL, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

PATSY L. CHAVIS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00088-FDW)


Submitted:   October 21, 2014             Decided:   October 24, 2014


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Samuel Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              James Samuel Hill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     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 Hill 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
