UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-6801



CECIL WILLIAM BOWSER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JOHN PATE, JR., Warden of Allendale
Correctional Institution; CHARLES M.
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 Charleston.    Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-3931-2-10)


Submitted:   September 9, 2004        Decided:   September 15, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cecil William Bowser, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Cecil William Bowser, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation and denying relief on his petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).   The order is not appealable 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 Bowser 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 -