ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, Chief District Judge.
This action was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the Court are the following two pro se motions filed by Petitioner Michael K. Merrifield: (1) a "Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii) Compelling a de novo Review of Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus" (ECF No. 3) and (2) "Motion to Stay and Abeyance" (ECF No. 16 at 19).
Although Petitioner's state habeas petition has been pending since May 9, 2011, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly and thoughtfully considered whether the delay in resolving the case arises to a constitutional violation under the factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
For these reasons and in light of the Barker factors, the Court rejects Petitioner's objections and argument that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations are erroneous, and the Court finds no reason to waive the exhaustion requirement. In fact, according to Respondent David Ballard, a hearing on the state habeas petition is scheduled to occur in the Circuit Court of Putnam County on August 7, 2017. Moreover, if unsuccessful in state court, Petitioner will have time to file a petition pursuant to § 2254 after the state proceedings conclude, and the Court finds no reason this action should be stayed pending the state court decision. See Proposed Findings and Recommendations, at 30-33 (explaining that Petitioner, if he chooses, will have time to file a federal habeas petition following the completion of the state proceedings).
Accordingly, the Court
The Court additionally has 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. at § 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