In these consolidated appeals, Waymare Billups appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). When, as in Appeal No. 02-7835, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bill-ups has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In No. 03-6064, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Billups v. *893 Beck, No. CA-02-720-5-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Oct. 21, 2002; entered Oct. 23, 2002). Because Billups may refile his action if his conviction ever is overturned or called into question by the appropriate court, we modify the judgment to be a dismissal without prejudice. In both cases, we deny the motion for a writ of habeas corpus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 02-7835 — DISMISSED.

No. 03-6064 — AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ■