                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7333



LONNELLE A. LANGLEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-222)


Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 22, 2004


Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lonnelle A. Langley, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Lonelle Langley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 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 habeas corpus

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 for claims addressed by a district

court   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 Langley 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 -
