UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 16-7692


ISIAH JAMES, JR.,

             Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

             Respondent – Appellee,

             and

JON OZMINT,

             Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-02256-TLW)


Submitted: April 20, 2017                                        Decided: April 24, 2017


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South
Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Isiah James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 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); 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) (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 James 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 deny James’ motion to stay and

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

                                             3