
    Marie Therese ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia SC, The City of, Respondent. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South CArolina, The State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia South Carolina, City of, hereinafter “the City”, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-1286, 13-1609.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
    Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
    Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her petitions seeking federal habeas relief. Assa’ad-Faltas has also filed motions to vacate the court’s consolidation order and to supplement her informal opening briefs in both appeals, as well as a motion and a supplemental motion for injunctive relief pending her appeal in Appeal No. 13-1609.

The district court orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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). 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 Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.  