
    Jason T. SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. T. SHARTLE, Named as FCC Warden; Susan McClintock, Named as USP Warden, Tucson, AZ; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 16-7603
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 17, 2017
    Decided: January 20, 2017
    Jason T. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and BUNG, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason T. Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 Scott 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  