
    Sadat Muhammad ABDULLAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-6376.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 6, 2015.
    Decided: July 16, 2015.
    Sadat Muhammad Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sadat Muhammad Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certifícate of appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Abdullah has not made the requisite showing. Abdullah’s appeal is essentially duplicative of his appeal in Abdullah v. Clarke, 600 Fed.Appx. 178 (4th Cir.2015). Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.  