                                 UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                 No. 08-6994


BRUCE MATHIS,

                   Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                   Respondent – Appellee,

             and

JON OZMINT, Director,

                   Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:07-cv-02758-DCN)


Submitted:    October 21, 2008                 Decided:   October 28, 2008


Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bruce Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.     Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Bruce       Mathis      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.                               The

order is not appealable 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 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    Mathis       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
