UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7764



KEVIN L. BANKS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


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

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-370-2)


Submitted: May 16, 2006                          Decided: May 19, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin L. Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Kevin L. Banks seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

subsequent motion to reconsider.           The orders are not appealable

unless   a   circuit   justice    or    judge   issues    a   certificate   of

appealability.      28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

, 369 (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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude     that   Banks   has   not    made    the     requisite    showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -