IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

ALLISON STANTON EL, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV463 MEHERRIN RIVER REGIONAL JAIL, et al, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a

petition. By Memorandum Order entered on June 30, 2025, (ECF No. 7) the Court informed Petitioner that in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). The Court mailed Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition and directed her to complete and return the form to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the June 30, 2025 Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes “‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Pettioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M. Hannah ie ate: 3 5 } is 5 United af Lz Richmond, Virginia