                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-7875


CHARLES M. RYNES,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

MCKITHER BODISON, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:08-cv-02335-TLW)


Submitted:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 22, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles M. Rynes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Charles M. Rynes 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   Rynes      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
