                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7876



ANDRE L. REED,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RICHARD E. SMITH, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-03-3823-2-26AJ)


Submitted:   July 6, 2005                 Decided:   August 2, 2005


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andre L. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Andre L. Reed, a state prisoner, 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. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge   issues   a    certificate   of   appealability.       28    U.S.C.   §

2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004).       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 findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.               See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reed

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 -
