
    Jimmy FAIRCLOTH, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent — Appellee.
    No. 04-6611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 15, 2004.
    Decided: July 22, 2004.
    Jimmy Faireloth, Appellant pro se.
    Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Faireloth, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) seeking to vacate, alter, or amend its order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 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 Faireloth has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, 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  