Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order adopting and affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of several post-judgment motions in Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently re*272viewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certifícate of appealability, 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