
    Richard B. MCNEMAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin PLUMLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-6547
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 8, 2017
    Decided: September 25, 2017
    Richard B. McNemar, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Hogan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard B. McNemar seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. § 2253(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 McNemar has not made the requisite showing. See Davila v. Davis, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 2058, 2062-63, 198 L.Ed.2d 603 (2017). Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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  