UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-6994


RICKY LEE MILLER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                Respondent – Appellee,

          and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00665-MHL)


Submitted:   December 16, 2010              Decided:   December 28, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricky Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se.    Alice Theresa Armstrong,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Ricky       Lee   Miller    seeks      to    appeal       the    magistrate

judge’s * order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                           See 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, 

,

484    (2000);       see    Miller-El     v.   Cockrell,     

,   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.                              

.              We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Miller 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


       *
       This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the
parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).



                                               2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3