                                UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 03-6854



DANI DALAL,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; CHARLES
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-1160-20-BH)


Submitted:    August 14, 2003                 Decided:   August 22, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dani Dalal, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Dani Dalal seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 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, 537 U.S. 322,     , 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 Dalal 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
