IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JOHN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05806 (Criminal No. 1:95-00174) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation on December 11, 2017, in which she recommended that the court deny plaintiff’s motion under

as untimely; dismiss this action with prejudice; and remove this case from the court’s active docket. In accordance with the provisions of

(b), plaintiff was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert'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,

(4th Cir. 1989). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations within the requisite time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Eifert as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s motion under

is DENIED as untimely; 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. 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

(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(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.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th of January, 2018. ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge