UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6886



WALTER LEE WRIGHT,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN,
JR.,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-56-AW)


Submitted:   August 28, 2003             Decided:   September 8, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Walter L. Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding 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 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, 

,

  , 

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 

(2001).       We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Wright has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,   we   deny   leave   to   proceed   in   forma   pauperis,    a

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny

Wright’s motion for a court ordered medical examination.                   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