UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-6992



JAMES CALVIN ADDISON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-2195-2-12)


Submitted:   August 26, 2004             Decided:   September 3, 2004


Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Calvin Addison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

                  James Calvin Addison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).1      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, 

, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record      and     conclude     that   Addison   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



        1
      We note that the district court’s dismissal was without
prejudice.

                                          - 2 -