UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6406



WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR.,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


D. G. WOOD, Superintendent,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-517-1)


Submitted:   August 25, 2005                 Decided:   September 1, 2005


Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Sandra Wallace-
Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William Hencely Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition filed 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 Davis

has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we deny Davis’

motions for 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 -