
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 24, 2003.
    Decided May 5, 2003.
    James Denson, Appellant Pro Se. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

James Denson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his motion for relief, construed as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner 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.) (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 independently reviewed the record and conclude Denson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.  