Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . Pending before the court is petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. ECF No. 1. By Standing Order, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations ("PF&R") for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). On February 5, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted her PF&R, in which she recommended th
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . Pending before the court is petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. ECF No. 1. By Standing Order, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations ("PF&R") for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). On February 5, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted her PF&R, in which she recommended tha..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the court is petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. By Standing Order, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations ("PF&R") for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On February 5, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted her PF&R, in which she recommended that the district court, GRANT respondent's request for dismissal, (ECF No. 9), and DISMISS petitioner's petition with prejudice from the court's docket, (ECF No. 1). See ECF No. 10.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert's Findings and Recommendation. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge's PF&R within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the PF&R the court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained therein, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS respondent's request for dismissal (ECF No. 9), and DISMISSES petitioner's petition with prejudice from the court's docket (ECF No. 1).
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The court concludes that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED.
