Opinion
Civil Action No: 1:13-00155
11-23-2015
RENARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (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. 2). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on October 22, 2015, 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. 15 at 15-6).
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 ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DISMISSES petitioner's petition 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 counsel of record and petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2015.
ENTER:
/s/_________
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge