                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6750



LEO L. MADDOX,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GARY D. MAYNARD, Director SCDC; CHARLES
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of SC,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-
02-1053-3)


Submitted:   July 24, 2003                 Decided:   July 31, 2003


Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leo L. Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Leo L. Maddox seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),

and denying his motion for reconsideration.   These orders are 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,

  , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).    We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Maddox 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
