UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7463



ROBERT W. GARRETT,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

           versus


STAN BURTT, 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 Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cv-03497-HMH)


Submitted:   December 21, 2006             Decided:   January 4, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert   W. Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE
OF THE   ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina; Roy F. Laney,
Nikole   Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, RILEY, POPE &
LANEY,   LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Robert W. Garrett 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 Garrett 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 -