UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7347



RONNIE MCCRAY,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


GARY MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; CHARLIE
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-02-838)


Submitted:   November 21, 2002            Decided:   December 9, 2002


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronnie McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Ronnie McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court 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

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                  28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).       As to claims dismissed by a district

court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability

will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)

‘that   jurists   of   reason   would       find    it   debatable   whether   the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”

Rose v. Lee, 

, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).               We have reviewed the record

and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court and the

magistrate judge that McCray has not satisfied either standard.

See McCray v. Maynard, No. CA-02-838 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


                                        2
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




                                3