UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6732



MILFORD WASHINGTON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


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

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00293-RBS-TEM)


Submitted:   August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 21, 2008


Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Milford Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Milford Washington 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.           See 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.        See   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

Washington 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