                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7271



ROBERT J. FERRELL,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-04-159-7-SGW)


Submitted:   November 18, 2004         Decided:     November 30, 2004


Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert J. Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Robert J. Ferrell appeals from the dismissal without

prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and the denial of

his subsequent motion for reconsideration for failure to comply

with a court order.       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 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   jurists    of     reason    would   find    that   his

constitutional   claims    are   debatable    and    that   any    dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

          We have reviewed the record and conclude that Ferrell has

not made the requisite showing.         We, therefore, 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 in the decisional process.



                                                                     DISMISSED


                                   - 2 -
