                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-6185



JAMES EARL SWITZER,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South
Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-3198-9-20BG)


Submitted:   March 19, 2004                  Decided:   May 25, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Earl Switzer, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            James Earl Switzer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional     claims    is   debatable      or    wrong   and   that    any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Switzer 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.



                                                                     DISMISSED


                                   - 2 -
