                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-8195


DENNIS L. SNIPES,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

CECILIA REYNOLDS,

                  Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:07-cv-03516-CMC-MCIV)


Submitted:    June 8, 2009                  Decided:   June 18, 2009


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Susan L. Ferguson, Burbank, California, for Appellant. William
Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Dennis L. Snipes 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    Snipes      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
