UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6602



MELVIN C. WYNN,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director        of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-46)


Submitted:    June 12, 2003                      Decided:   June 20, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Melvin C. Wynn, Appellant Pro Se.     William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Melvin C. Wynn, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district   court’s    order    adopting   the   magistrate    judge’s

recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).   An appeal may not be taken from a 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 both 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, 

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Wynn has not made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we

grant Wynn’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, but 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