
    Stephen Andrew BECKHAM, a/k/a Stephen A. Beckham, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and Bryan Stirling, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
    No. 16-6345
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 14, 2016
    Decided: October 26, 2016
    Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, Blume, Norris & FranMin-Best, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Andrew Beckham seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting, in part, 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 Beckham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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  