Cory Alan Hatcher v. Christopher Mason

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

CORY ALAN HATCHER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-cv-00170 CHRISTOPHER MASON, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 2, 2026, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Cost (Document 1) and a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on March 3, 2026, this action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On April 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny as moot the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Cost (Document 1) and his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 2), and dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 18, 2026.

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Cost (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT, the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 2) be DENIED AS MOOT, and this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.

The Court has additionally considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 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 Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: May 28, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA