
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 18, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 3, 2003.
    
      Matthew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Matthew Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders: (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000); and (2) denying his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Davis also seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to recuse the magistrate judge. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a motion under § 2255 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Davis has not satisfied either standard. See United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-95-284; CA-99-842-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2001; filed Jan. 8, 2002 & entered Jan. 9, 2002; filed May 9, 2002 & entered May 10, 2002). 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.  