IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

BENJAMIN MELENDEZ-ROCHA,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-03481

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on April 11, 2019, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with the provisions of

(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus 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 constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989). The parties 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 Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court FINDS that the plaintiff has received the proper prior custody credit and that his sentences have been properly executed. Therefore, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

(ECF No. 1) and this civil action and removes this matter from the court’s 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 directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2019. ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge