                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6596


GREGORY L. ROSS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00281-LCB-LPA)


Submitted: September 26, 2017                               Decided: September 28, 2017


Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Lynn Ross, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gregory Lynn Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition as successive and unauthorized. 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ross 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 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
