                                UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 09-6419


ELMER CONNELL TAYLOR,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

BUTCH JACKSON,

                  Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02171-H)


Submitted:    August 20, 2009                 Decided:    August 26, 2009


Before WILKINSON and      MICHAEL,    Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elmer Connell Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Elmer    Connell        Taylor       seeks   to     appeal     the    district

court’s    order    denying    relief      on     his    28     U.S.C.    § 2254    (2006)

petition    and     has     moved     this       court    for     a      certificate   of

appealability.       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.

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,

683-84    (4th    Cir.    2001).      We     have    independently         reviewed    the

record    and    conclude    that     Taylor       has    not    made     the    requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s motion for 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
