UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6550



WALTER FRANK AGEE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THOMAS L. MCBRIDE,      Warden,    Mount   Olive
Correctional Complex,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:04-cv-00013-REM)


Submitted: August 31, 2006                  Decided: September 6, 2006


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Walter Frank Agee, Appellant Pro se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Walter Frank Agee 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.             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     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 Agee has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny Agee’s motion to

appoint counsel, 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 -