UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6680



SHAWN E. PAULING,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-619-2-25)


Submitted:   June 10, 2004                  Decided:   June 21, 2004


Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn E. Pauling, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Shawn E. Pauling seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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, 

,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 

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

reviewed the record and conclude that Pauling 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 -