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

ANN MARIE HILS,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 1:19-00175

WARDEN, Federal Prison Camp Alderson,

Respondent.

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 Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on May 6, 2020, in which she recommended that the court deny petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

, (ECF No. 1); grant Respondent’s request for dismissal, (ECF No. 9); and dismiss this action, with prejudice, from the docket of the court. (ECF No. 12.) In accordance with the provisions of

(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file objections to the PF&R. 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. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); see also

(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a

de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Neither party filed objections to the PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the PF&R as follows: 1. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

(ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 2. Respondent’s request for dismissal (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; and 3. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of the court.

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 send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2021. BNTER: Raut O Dabo David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge