Perez-Ortega v. Masters et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert; DENIES Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition; DENIES his request for counsel 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 10/21/2015. (cc: Petitioner, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
LEOPOLDO PEREZ-ORTEGA,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:13-28901
BART MASTERS, et al.,
Warden
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to
the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation on September
18, 2015, in which she recommended that the district court deny
petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to §
2441, deny petitioner’s request for counsel, and remove this
matter from the court’s docket.
(Doc. No. 8).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert’s
Findings and Recommendation.
The failure to file such
objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review
1
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 Eifert, 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 DENIES petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 1), DENIES his request for counsel, 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 21st day of October, 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?