
    Larry WILLIAMS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Caroflina F. WILLIAMS; Thomas Cooper, Jr., Judge; William H. Chandler; Harry L. Devoe, Jr.; NFN Shuler; Gordon B. Jenkinson; David Spencer; Henry D. McMaster, Respondents — Appellees.
    No. 04-8016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 10, 2005.
    Decided: March 15, 2005.
    Larry Williams, Appellant pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying, without prejudice, his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as successive. 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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  