                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-6729



BILLY GENE LEDWELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


SANDRA F. THOMAS, Supt. of Lumberton Correctional Inst.,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00165-WO-RAE)


Submitted:   September 16, 2008       Decided:   September 22, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Gene Ledwell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Billy Gene Ledwell 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 (2000) petition.             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     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 Ledwell 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
