The opinion of the court was delivered by: George C. Smith United States District Judge
On September 6, 2006, final judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner was granted an extension of time until November 6, 2006, within which to file his notice of appeal. See Doc. No. 24. This matter is before the Court on petitioner's October 31, 2006, notice of appeal and financial affidavit, which the Court construes as a request for a certificate of appealability, and request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. No. 25. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's requests are DENIED.
In his §2254 petition, petitioner asserts:
1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for not raising error during appeal concerning the same errors [sic].
2. Denial of right to a jury trial.
3. Denial of effective assistance of counsel.
4. Denial of right to due process of law and equal protection.
5. Double jeopardy, due process of law.
6. Due process, double jeopardy.
7. Denial of sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate the defendant appellant guilty of corrupt activities -- due process.
On September 6, 2006, all of petitioner's claims were dismissed as without merit or procedurally defaulted.
Petitioner did not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal of claim seven. Thus, he has waived the right to appeal such claim. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); ...