
    Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and SC Parole Board; SC Dept of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondents.
    No. 17-7379
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 27, 2018
    Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEr PARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ■

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. 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 Bagley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate, of appealability, 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  