                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6452



GARY JOHN MOFFA,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


HOWARD PAINTER, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-130-1)


Submitted:   May 15, 2003                   Decided:   May 29, 2003


Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gary John Moffa, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Gary John Moffa seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                An appeal may

not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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   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, 123 S. Ct. 1029,

1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Moffa 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
