
    Samuel LINSEY, IV, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections; John R. Alderan, Virginia Parole Board, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-6140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2007.
    Decided: July 30, 2007.
    
      Samuel Linsey, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Samuel Linsey, IV seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Linsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
     