UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6208



HERBERT CHAVIS,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


RICK JACKSON,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00833-WO-RAE)


Submitted:   June 26, 2008                   Decided:   July 1, 2008


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Herbert Chavis, Appellant Pro Se.     Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Herbert Chavis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his application for a certificate of appealability to

appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Chavis’ 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 Chavis has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, 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 -