UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-8035


JAMES MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Ahmad Muhammad-Ali,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS; CHIEF MCCLEASE,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.      Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-04513-MGL)


Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 22, 2016


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       James Muhammad, a state pretrial detainee, 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, 

,

484    (2000);    see    Miller-El     v.   Cockrell,        

,    336-38

(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.                           

.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Muhammad has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                           We

dispense     with       oral   argument      because        the    facts    and    legal



                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3