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

MICHAEL GOFF,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 1:19-00092

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, FCI McDowell,,

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 April 13, 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. 10); and dismiss this action, with prejudice, and remove it from the docket of the court. 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. Respondent’s request for dismissal (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; and 2. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

(ECF No. 1) and this civil action are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1 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

1 The court declines to adopt the PF&R’s recommendation to dismiss this action with prejudice and instead dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Buey v. Warden, FCI McDowell, No. 20-7483,

, at *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021). 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 13th day of January, 2022. BNTER: Rautd A Dols David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge