UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 17-6202


PHILLIP C. BAY,

             Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00064-MSD-LRL)


Submitted: September 29, 2017                                 Decided: October 16, 2017


Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Phillip C. Bay, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Phillip C. Bay seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The

orders are 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 Bay 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 presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                               DISMISSED



                                             2