                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6320



ELSON MCKANIC,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-1835-9-20BG)


Submitted:   June 23, 2005                 Decided:   June 30, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elson McKanic, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Elson McKanic, a state prisoner, 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. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues   a   certificate    of     appealability.      28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004).       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 and that any dispositive procedural findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.                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 McKanic

has not make 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 -
