
    Gary Wayne PRESLEY, formerly 600249, 214298 Alpha, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Ronaldo Myers, Director of the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-6177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 22, 2014.
    Decided: May 29, 2014.
    Gary Wayne Presley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, David Allan DeMasters, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Presley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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 Presley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.  