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)

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