ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Pro se litigant Richard Lay petitions the Court for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The Magistrate Judge recommends that Lay's complaint be dismissed without prejudice because Lay failed to exhaust his state court remedies.2 Lay objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (R&R), reiterating the same arguments Lay made in his original petition.3 Having reviewed de novo the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and Lay's objections to the R&R, the Court approves the R&R and adopts it as its opinion.4

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that "[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A court may only issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The "controlling standard" for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented [are] adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as well as this Order denying relief, the Court concludes that Lay's petition fails to satisfy this standard.