Palmer v. Batts
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1 PETITION under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 7/2/2014. (cc: plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
KENDA PALMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-0566
MYRON 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. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation on May 21, 2014, in
which he recommended that the District Court dismiss plaintiff’s
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. § 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
seventeen-day 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 DISMISSES plaintiff’s 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.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
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?