
    Michael Lee EVERAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Benjamin WRIGHT, Chief Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-7480.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 27, 2015.
    Decided: April 1, 2015.
    Michael Lee Everage, Appellant Pro Se.
    David Michael Uberman, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Everage 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Everage has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Everage’s motions for a certificate of appealability, to answer interrogatories, and for a subpoena duces tecum, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court ánd argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  