UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6392



ROOSEVELT BROOKS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director      of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-04-283)


Submitted:   May 13, 2005                       Decided:   May 24, 2005


Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Bryan Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Roosevelt Brooks 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).

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, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,     we   deny   Brooks’    motion    for    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 -