                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-6357


DANIEL BINGMAN,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

SHANNON MARKLE,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cv-00052-REM-JSK)


Submitted:    July 23, 2009                 Decided:   July 29, 2009


Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Bingman, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy
Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Daniel Bingman 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 (2006) petition.                                     The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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)        (2006).          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   Bingman      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
