
    Robert James PETRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia O. THORNTON, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-7886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 29, 2015.
    Decided: June 10, 2015.
    Robert James Petrick, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Petrick seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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. § 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 reliéf 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 Petrick has not made fee requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Petrick’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appeala-bility, 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. 
      
       The parties consented to proceeding to final judgment before a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
     