
    John Dwayne GARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Chuck WRIGHT; Major Neal Urch; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-6431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 25, 2014.
    Decided: Sept. 29, 2014.
    John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Du-pont, Spartanburg County Attorney’s Office, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garvin’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel 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.  