Cox v. Ames

Filing 26

ORDER adopting the 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and granting 10 MOTION by Donald F. Ames to Dismiss 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; directing that this action is dismissed and removed from the court's docket; a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/5/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER COX,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00577

DONALD F. AMES,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending before the court are Petitioner Christopher Cox’s Petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [ECF No. 2], and Respondent Donald F.
Ames’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10]. This action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Omar Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 17, 2024, Judge
Aboulhosn submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF
No. 23], and recommended that the court GRANT Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
and REMOVE this matter from the court’s docket. Neither party timely filed
objections to the PF&R or sought an extension of time to do so.
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).
Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and
incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court
hereby GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10], and ORDERS that
this action be dismissed and removed from the court’s docket.
I have also 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). I conclude 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 copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

June 5, 2024