                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7613



JOSEPH SHANNON SMITH,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


K. J. BASSETT, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-687-7)


Submitted:   April 20, 2005                 Decided:   May 10, 2005


Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Shannon Smith, Appellant Pro Se.      John H. McLees, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Joseph Shannon Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding 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     Smith   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 -
