Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03129
08-18-2020
JOSEPH RODNEY BROOKS, Petitioner, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on May 12, 2020, in which he recommended that the court dismiss petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), and remove this matter from the court's docket. (ECF No. 7.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley's Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 29, 2020. Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court also adopts the Finding and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tinsley as follows:
1. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), is DISMISSED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court's active docket.
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 unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2020.
ENTER:
/s/_________
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge