
    Curtis Leon TAYLOR, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee. Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. Hinkle, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 09-6549, 10-6657.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 9, 2010.
    Decided: July 9, 2010.
    Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr. seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2006). 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny Taylor’s motion for de novo review, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
     