                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7405



ADOLPH DAMMERAU,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD   J.   ANGELONE,  Director,    Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-745)


Submitted:   December 8, 2004             Decided:   January 28, 2005


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Adolph Dammerau, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Adolph N. Dammerau, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal

the magistrate judge’s order* denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(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 Dammerau has not made the requisite

showing.      Accordingly, we deny Dammerau’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




      *
      The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                                    - 2 -
