                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7315



MICHAEL ANTHONY ELLIOTT,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SELMA TOWNES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00457-JAB)


Submitted:   January 31, 2008             Decided:   February 7, 2008


Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Michael Anthony Elliott 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 (2000) petition.                     The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).             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)    (2000).    A   prisoner     satisfies     this    standard     by

demonstrating     that    reasonable     jurists    would     find       that   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.           Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motion

for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal. 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.

                                                                         DISMISSED




                                     - 2 -
