UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 08-6422



GARY VANNATTER, SR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


WARDEN E. RICHARD BAZZLE,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.   Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (6:07-cv-01267-JFA)


Submitted:   July 31, 2008                 Decided:   August 8, 2008


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gary Vannatter, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Gary Vannatter, Sr., 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 Vannatter has

not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny Vannatter’s

motion 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 -