
    Tyrone PATRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-6581
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 11, 2016
    Decided: October 28, 2016
    Tyrone Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Patrick seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief oh his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifí-cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of ap-pealability 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 Patrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Patrick’s motion for a transcript at government expense and 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  