IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA PRSESEBED EH □□ i721 JAN

Sy STATESBORO DIVISION . } EE idl DANIEL ERIC COBBLE, ) eS DIST. □□□□□ ) Petitioner, ) ) V. ) CV 620-103 ) U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; ) U.S. B.O.P.; U.S. MARSHALS; ) GDC COMMISSIONER; and ) WARDEN TREVONZA BOBBITT, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 14-1.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice because Petitioner did not submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the filing fee, and in any event, the petition is frivolous. (See doc. no. 12.) Petitioner’s objections do nothing to undermine the conclusion the case should be dismissed, but one objection warrants further comment. Petitioner maintains the Magistrate Judge misunderstood the petition to request Petitioner be put in federal custody pursuant to a years-old writ. (Doc. no. 14-1, pp. 2-3, 6, 8.) Rather, Petitioner claims he is asking for “goods and acts [he] was supposed to get” under Bureau of Prison policies during the five and one half years it took to complete his federal

criminal proceedings. (Id. at 2.) Even if the Court were to assume that is what Petitioner intended to seek in his original petition, there is no basis either in law or fact to grant such a request in a case filed pursuant to

. “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez,

,

,

(1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close,

(2004) (per curiam); see also Siskos v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,

, 764 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (same). As Petitioner concedes in his objections he is not challenging the validity of his current confinement or the circumstances affecting the duration of his current confinement, he would not be entitled to relief even if he had followed Court orders to submit a proper motion to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES ail objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as expanded upon herein, as its opinion, and DISMISSES this petition filed pursuant to

without prejudice. Further, a state prisoner seeking relief under § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) before appealing the denial of his application for a writ of habeas

corpus. See Sawyer v. Holder,

, 1364 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[S]tate prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA to appeal.”) This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and in consideration of the standards enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000), Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA

in this case. Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and Petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. See

(a)(3). Upon the foregoing, the Court CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this /2hoaay of January, 2021, at Augusta, Georgia.

ANDATHIALL, CHIEF JUDG FATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA