
    Charles Edward BAGBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry T. EDMONDS, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center; Patrick Gurney, Acting Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-7372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
    Decided: Jan. 21, 2015.
    Charles Edward Bagby, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Bagby seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 ap-pealability. 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 Bagby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bagby’s motion to file amended pleadings, deny a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.  