
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6941.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2006.
    Decided: March 30, 2006.
    Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, John Lanier File, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kokoski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s motions to amend the caption and for immediate release on bail. 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  