UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6276



ANTONIO EUGENE GAYNOR,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


UNNAMED DEFENDANT,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-04-668)


Submitted:    May 19, 2005                     Decided:   May 26, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Eugene Gaynor, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Colette Anderson,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Antonio Eugene Gaynor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust state

remedies.    This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues   a   certificate     of    appealability.    28   U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 

, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004).       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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.              See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

             We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Gaynor 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 -