Case Name: Billy Ray MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Neil VAUGHAN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-23
Citations: 548 F. App'x 943
Docket Number: No. 13-7277
Parties: Billy Ray MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Neil VAUGHAN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 943–944

Head Matter:
Billy Ray MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Neil VAUGHAN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7277.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 19, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2013.
Billy Ray Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Morrison 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morrison 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 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.