Case Name: Thomas DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the state of MARYLAND; Bobby Shearin, Warden, Respondents-Appellees and John Rowley, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-22
Citations: 546 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 13-7222
Parties: Thomas DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the state of MARYLAND; Bobby Shearin, Warden, Respondents-Appellees and John Rowley, Respondent.
Judges: Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 546
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Thomas DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the state of MARYLAND; Bobby Shearin, Warden, Respondents-Appellees and John Rowley, Respondent.
No. 13-7222.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 22, 2013.
Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Davis has unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in a true § 2254 petition. Because Davis's 60(b) motion was a successive and unauthorized § 2254 petition, see In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir.1997), the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir.2003), and 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 F.3d 363, 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). Wfiien the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison er 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 Davis 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.