UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7555


DAVID BRIGHTWELL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF MCI-J, Maryland Correctional Institution,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:17-cv-02229-RDB)


Submitted: April 29, 2020                                         Decided: June 15, 2020


Before DIAZ, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Brightwell, a Maryland state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 

, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brightwell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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




                                              2