UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7008


BILLY RAY MILLS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.     Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-01320-TMC)


Submitted:   October 15, 2015             Decided:   October 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Ray Mills, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Billy Ray Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting       the      recommendation     of        the   magistrate       judge        and

dismissing 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

Mills 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



                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3