MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON, District Judge.

On March 25, 2019, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation (doc. 10), recommending that the court dismiss Dynassus Nual Buggs' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Mr. Buggs has not filed any objections to the report and recommendation. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved, with one clarification.

The magistrate judge construed Mr. Buggs' fourth claim to be one under state law. (See Doc. 10 at 3, 5). In that claim, Mr. Buggs asserted that the lack of a hearing on his request for release was a denial of due process. (Doc. 1 at 10). Mr. Buggs does not specify whether he means federal or state due process (see id.), but construed liberally, he could be asserting a claim that the lack of a hearing deprived him of due process under the United States Constitution. But the court agrees with the magistrate judge that, however Mr. Buggs couched the claim, it is in reality a challenge to the state court's interpretation of its own procedural rules, which is not cognizable in a § 2254 petition. See Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Although petitioner alleges violations of federal law, it is clear that this petition is based exclusively on state law issues which are merely couched in terms of equal protection and due process.") (quotation marks omitted).

The court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The court WILL DISMISS the § 2254 petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has a made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a "petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that "the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further," Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotation marks omitted). This court finds that Mr. Buggs' claims do not satisfy either standard. Accordingly, the court WILL DENY a certificate of appealability.

The court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion.

DONE and ORDERED.