UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7109


JAMES CHARLES CALWILE,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

R. H. MAUNEY,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:15-cv-02089-TMC)


Submitted:   December 15, 2015             Decided:    December 17, 2015


Before GREGORY    and   FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,    and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Charles Calwile 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

Calwile has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Calwile’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense


                                           2
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




                                     3