UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7368



CLIFTON HARRIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-03-2924-8-23)


Submitted:   January 28, 2005          Decided:     February 17, 2005


Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Clifton Harris, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Clifton Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

granting    the    Government’s   motion   for    summary   judgment    and

dismissing his petition as procedurally defaulted under 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   Harris   has   not   made     the   requisite   showing.

Accordingly, we deny Harris’ motion to amend his § 2254 petition,

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 -