UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6779


KENNETH NEWKIRK,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00229-HEH-RCY)


Submitted: October 26, 2017                                 Decided: November 28, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior order. 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 Newkirk has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newkirk’s motion to reconsider the

order deferring action on his in forma pauperis application, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, 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