UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6053



TIMOTHY E. BRAXTON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-1990-3-13)


Submitted:   June 27, 2003                 Decided:   July 25, 2003


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy E. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Timothy E. Braxton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order substantially accepting the report and

recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).                  The order is

appealable only if a circuit judge of justice 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).

An inmate satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists    would   find   both   that       his   constitutional   claims   are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.                 See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude    that   Braxton   has   not       made   the   requisite   showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Further, we deny Braxton’s motion for summary judgment and

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