                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6880



ELMORE BRAXTON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WILLIAM WHITE, Warden, BRCI; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-04-21771-2-CMC)


Submitted:   October 18, 2005             Decided:   October 21, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elmore Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Elmore Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.            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, 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). Braxton 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 -
