West v. USA

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 9/6/2018. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/6/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
KEYSTON JAMORY WEST,
Petitioner,
v.

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 3:00-CR-46-2
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-106
(GROH)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United
States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this
action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R.
Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 389 in 3:00-CR-46] on August 10,
2018. In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner’s Motion
[ECF No. 362 in 3:00-CR-46, ECF No. 1 in 3:17-CV-106] be denied and dismissed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of
the magistrate judge=s findings where objection is made. However, the Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions
of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a
Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

28.U.S.C..' 636(b)(1); Snyder v.

Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 (4th Cir. 1984).

Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble=s R&R were due within fourteen plus
three days of service.

28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Service was

accepted by the pro se Petitioner on August 13, 2018. ECF No. 390 in 3:00-CR-46. To
date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear
error.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 389 in 3:00-CR-46] should be, and is
hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Petitioner
has not obtained authorization from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file his
successive § 2255 motion in this Court. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to
consider the Petitioner’s claims and the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate [ECF No. 362 in
3:00-CR-46, ECF No. 1 in 3:17-CV-106] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Petitioner’s Motion to Order the Government to Respond [ECF No.
381 in 3:00-CR-46] is DENIED.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby
DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability, finding that he has failed to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: September 6, 2018

2