UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7685


THEODORE MORRIS FOUST,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GEORGE T. SOLOMON,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00819-CCE-JLW)


Submitted:   February 25, 2015             Decided:   March 2, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Theodore        Morris    Foust      seeks    to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order     accepting         the    recommendation           of    the    magistrate

judge and denying as successive 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, 

,

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 Foust has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny Foust’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny him

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                                    We

dispense      with       oral    argument       because      the        facts       and    legal

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3