Sloan v. Butler

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 6 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; dismisses petitioner's 1 PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 5/13/2015. (cc: petitioner, pro se) (mjp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD TINA MAE SLOAN, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No: 1:12-04674 SANDRA BUTLER, Warden Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 1). (Doc. No. By Standing Order, this matter 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). (Doc. No. 5). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on April 24, 2015. In the PF&R, Magistrate Judge VanDervort recommended that the district court dismiss petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remove this matter from the court’s docket. (Doc. No. 6). 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 the PF&R. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a 1 de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the PF&R filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. 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). Id. § 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 court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DISMISSES petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s docket. 2 The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2015. 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?