
    Tracy Lamont CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin KELLER, Secretary of Prisons; Sidney Harkleroad, Administrator, MCI, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 13-7499.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 28, 2014.
    Decided: Feb. 7, 2014.
    Tracy Lamont Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Lamont Clark seeks to appeal the district court’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 certifícate of appeal-ability. See 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Clark’s motion for a transcript. 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.  