UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6873



JIMMY G. GILCHRIST, SR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GEORGE   T.   HAGAN,  Warden   of   Allendale
Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:06-cv-01236-MBS)


Submitted:   September 28, 2007           Decided:   October 11, 2007


Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                   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     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.           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 Gilchrist has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, as well as Gilchrist’s motion to expand the

certificate,     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 -