Opinion
Civil Action No: 1:13-02508
03-03-2015
MICHAEL J. WELLS, Petitioner, v. KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is petitioner's Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. No. 1). By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 3). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on December 17, 2013, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remove this matter from the court's docket. (Doc. No. 12).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort'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 Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein.
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." 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). The court concludes that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly the court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The court hereby DISMISSES petitioner's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2015.
ENTER:
/s/_________
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge