Harwood v. Batts
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 10 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; DENIES 3 Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs filed by Shirley Harwood; DISMISSES her 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 petition and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 9/23/2011. (cc: plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
SHIRLEY HARWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-1086
MYRON L. BATTS, Warden,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation on August 5, 2011, in
which he recommended that the District Court deny plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss her petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, and remove this matter from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s
Findings and Recommendation.
The failure of any party to file
such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de
novo review by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th
Cir. 1989).
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the allotted time
period.
Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and
recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby
DENIES plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISSES
her petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and directs the Clerk to
remove this case from the court’s active docket.
Additionally, the court 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.”
2253(c)(2).
28 U.S.C. §
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 Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2011.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?