IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD TERE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00860 WARDEN, FCI McDowell, 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 recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on October 19, 2021, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, as moot due to plaintiff’s release from custody. 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 allotted time period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES this matter for failure to prosecute and directs the Clerk 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 directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2022. ENTER: : Rk = 7 SS | David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge