
    Michael Raymond HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-7566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2015.
    Decided: June 4, 2015.
    Matthew Gridley Pruden, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe Del-Forge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before AGEE and HARRIS, 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   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Raymond Hawkins 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 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate 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 Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
     