
    Stephen Michael GAULTNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-7867.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 18, 2013.
    Decided: May 2, 2013.
    
      Stephen Michael Gaultney, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, R. Christopher Smith, Silas B. Taylor, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia; Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Michael Gaultney seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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 Gaultney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gaultney’s motion for 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.  