
    David Gregory LANDECK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David ZOOK, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee. Christopher Todd Landeck, Petitioner-Appellant, v. I. T. Gilmore, Warden—Coffewood Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-7432, No. 16-7514
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2017
    Decided: May 10, 2017
    David Gregory Landeck; Christopher Todd Landeck, Appellants Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Gregory Landeck and Christopher Todd Landeck seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 the Landecks have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility, deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, and dismiss the appeals. We further deny the motion for a second brief following the certificate of appealability ruling. 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 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012),
     