                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7971




SHAWN THOMAS,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus



GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-05-415-2)


Submitted:   April 27, 2006                           Decided: May 5, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn Thomas, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Shawn Thomas, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district    court’s   order   accepting   the    recommendation    of   the

magistrate judge and 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 Thomas

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 -
