
    Marie Therese ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, the State of, Respondent-Appellee, and Columbia, City of, Respondent. Marie Therese Assa’Ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, the State of, Respondent-Appellee and Columbia, the City of, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-1280, 13-1287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 21, 2013.
    
      Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, pro se.
    Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her petitions seeking federal habeas relief.

The district court orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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 Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeals. 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.  