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

ROBERT LOUIS GRAY OSBORNE,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-00531

WARDEN,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). See ECF No. 4. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) to the court on July 30, 2024, in which he recommends that (1) the district court dismiss petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition and Supplement (ECF Nos. 1, 5), and (2) remove this action from the court’s active docket. See ECF No. 11. In accordance with the provisions of

(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, to object to the PF&R. The failure of any party to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. See Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989). Petitioner did not file objections to the PF&R. Accordingly, the court adopts the factual and legal

analysis contained within the PF&R; DISMISSES petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition and Supplement (ECF Nos. 1, 5); and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove 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.”

§ 2253(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,

, 336–38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

, 683–84 (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 petitioner pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2024. ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge