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

EDGAR GIBRIAN PEDRAZA-RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00102

WARDEN ROKOSKY; and ACTING WARDEN LEFEVER,

Defendants.

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

(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 1, 2023, in which she recommended that the district court grant defendants’ request for dismissal, deny plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

as moot, dismiss this action, and remove this matter from the court’s docket. 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 Eifert’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 Eifert, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendants’ request for dismissal, DENIES plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

as moot, DISMISSES this action, 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 and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2025. ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge