UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 04-6987



JASON ROWE,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


BOBBY G. COMPTON,

                                                  Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-173)


Submitted:    August 12, 2004                 Decided:   August 20, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jason Rowe, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jason Rowe, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order that construed his petition labeled as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000) action as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and

dismissed the action without prejudice, and the court’s order

denying reconsideration. 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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record and conclude Rowe 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 -