ORDER

DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that respondent's motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment be granted, that petitioner's petition for habeas corpus be denied, and that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing.

This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).1 No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On November 7, 2016, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, respondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED, petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(b)(2).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.