UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6566


TYARE RIDDICK,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

D. ROBINSON, Warden,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-01007-LMB-TCB)


Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 3, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyare Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan Lee Parrish, BOWEN,
CHAMPLIN, CARR FOREMAN & ROCKECHARLIE, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                 Tyare       Riddick       seeks    to    appeal       the    district          court’s

order       denying       his    Fed.        R.     Civ.        P.    60(b)       motion        seeking

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on

his    28     U.S.C.         § 2254    (2006)           petition.           The    order        is   not

appealable         unless        a     circuit          justice        or     judge       issues       a

certificate of appealability.                           28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);

Reid     v.       Angelone,          

,        369    (4th        Cir.     2004).

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    Riddick       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

                                                    2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3