UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6363


RICHARD B. FULLER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.     Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (9:09-cv-00348-PMD)


Submitted:   May 20, 2010                  Decided:   May 28, 2010


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard B. Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.       Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Richard B. Fuller 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 (2006) petition.                                The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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)        (2006).        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    Fuller       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