Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-cv-00577
06-05-2024
CHRISTOPHER COX, Petitioner, v. DONALD F. AMES, Respondent.
ORDER
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the court are Petitioner Christopher Cox's Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [ECF No. 2], and Respondent Donald F. Ames' Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10]. This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 17, 2024, Judge Aboulhosn submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF No. 23], and recommended that the court GRANT Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and REMOVE this matter from the court's docket. Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R or sought an extension of time to do so.
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court hereby GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10], and ORDERS that this action be dismissed and removed from the court's docket.
I have also 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.” Id. § 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). I conclude that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.