Sharpe v. Butler

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; GRANTS Respondent's 11 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 12/1/2014. (cc: Petitioner, Pro Se) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CAMILLE M. SHARPE,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:13-07333

BARBARA RICKARD,
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.

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. 2).

Magistrate Judge VanDervort

submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation
on October 28, 2014, in which he recommended that the district
court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), and
remove this matter from the court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 14).

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 to file

such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo
1

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 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 recommendation 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 GRANTS respondent’s motion to dismiss,
(Doc. No. 14), DISMISSES petitioner’s Application 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 1st day of December, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3