                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7590



QUINTIN LITTLEJOHN,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH;
JUST CARE INCORPORATED; DETENTION HEALTH CARE;
HENRY MCMASTER,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-03-1690-6-26)


Submitted:   April 14, 2005                 Decided:   April 19, 2005


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quintin Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Quintin Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

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 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 independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Littlejohn 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 -
