                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-7130


HARRY JARRELL,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.     Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00040-FPS-JSK)


Submitted:    February 19, 2009               Decided:   March 17, 2009


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harry Jarrell, Appellant Pro Se.           R. Christopher Smith, Dawn
Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney            General, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Harry      Jarrell      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    Jarrell      has    not        made     the    requisite       showing.

Accordingly,     we       deny    Jarrell’s          motion    for    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
