                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7329



BILLY RAY MORRISON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JOHN NEIL VAUGHAN,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02199-H)


Submitted:   November 20, 2007         Decided:     November 29, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Ray Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Billy Ray Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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.         See 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.         See    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

Morrison 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 -
