
    Raymond Bradley MCCARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF WATEREE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
    No. 16-7266
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2017
    Decided: April 3, 2017
    Raymond Bradley McCarter, Appellant Pro Se. Dona-d John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Apnellee.
    Before TRAXLIT and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and B.AM111 *)N, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 ⅛
   Unpublished opinions arq! not br (ding precedent in this circuit. }

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Bradley McCarter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 McCarter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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  