UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6842



XAVIER DOMINIQUE JOHNSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GRADY J. HAYNES,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00338-WO-PTS)


Submitted:   August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 27, 2008


Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Xavier Dominique Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Xavier Dominique Johnson 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 Johnson has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Johnson’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