                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6271



FREDDIE DAVIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director for South
Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:05-cv-00033-CMC)


Submitted: March 30, 2006                   Decided: April 10, 2006


Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Freddie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Freddie Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting     the   magistrate     judge’s    recommendation     to   grant   the

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and deny relief on Davis’

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.            This 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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional      claims   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 (4th Cir. 2001).           We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Davis 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 -
