                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6590



CASEY GEORGE RYGH,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-04-291-2)


Submitted:   August 31, 2005            Decided:   September 29, 2005


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Casey George Rygh, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Casey George Rygh, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).           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 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 Rygh 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 -
