
    Shawn DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden M. MCCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-6101
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: November 20, 2017
    Shawn Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its prior order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing D|avis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012); 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) (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, 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  