                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7690



TONY HESTER VINSON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


LAFAYETTE HALL,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00701-JAB)


Submitted:   February 22, 2007            Decided:   March 2, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tony Hester Vinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Tony Hester Vinson 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 Vinson has not

made   the   requisite   showing.      Accordingly,     although   we     grant

Vinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion

for 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 -
