UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-7725



TYRONE WEBB, a/k/a Tyrone F. Webb,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STEVEN GAL, Warden; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-2918-25BC)


Submitted:   July 15, 2004                 Decided:   July 20, 2004


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrone Webb, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Tyrone Egbert Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).      The order is appealable only if 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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Webb 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 -