UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6898



JOHN A. RIDDICK,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


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. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-00-622-9)


Submitted:    July 24, 2003                      Decided:   July 31, 2003


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John A. Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.      Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      John A. Riddick seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 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 § 2254 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   Riddick    has   not   made   the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Riddick’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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