UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7462



COLLINS STEPHANIE WILSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID HUBBARD, Superintendent, McCain
Correctional Hospital,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-716)


Submitted:   January 13, 2005             Decided:   January 20, 2005


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Collins Stephanie Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Collins Stephanie Wilson, a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal   the    district   court’s    order     adopting       the   report   and

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                  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 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, 

,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson 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 -