                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7299



CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH FRANCIS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State
of South Carolina; WARDEN, Evans Correctional
Institution,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(4:05-cv-02726-HFF)


Submitted: November 15, 2006                Decided:   November 22, 2006


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Joseph Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher Joseph Francis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing without prejudice 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 Francis 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 -
