
    Derrick Javon LINDSEY, a/k/a Derrick Javon Lindsey El Bey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-6752.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2015.
    Decided: July 24, 2015.
    
      Derrick Javon Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Jess D. Mekeel, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as late his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 motion 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 Lindsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.  