                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7150



HEYWARD CECIL DEMPSEY,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney
General for South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (4:05-cv-02464-HMH)


Submitted:   December 22, 2006            Decided:   January 12, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Heyward Cecil Dempsey, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Heyward   Cecil   Dempsey   seeks     to    appeal    the    district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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.        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.             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 Dempsey 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 -
