                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-7079


VAN PRINCE WELCH,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                  Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00320-HCM-TEM)


Submitted:    September 29, 2009            Decided:   October 8, 2009


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se.  Richard           Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,            Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.                     28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2006).    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)       (2006).          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    Welch      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
