Antwi v. Masters
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Eifert, DENIES Petitioner's 2 PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus, GRANTS 10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bart Masters, Warden, 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 6/9/2015. (cc: counsel of record and Petitioner, pro se) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JOSEPH ANTWI,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:14-14070
BART MASTERS,
Warden
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 2), and respondent’s motion to
dismiss as moot.
(Doc. No. 10).
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).
3).
(Doc. No.
Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed
Findings and Recommendation on May 18, 2015, in which she
recommended that the district court deny petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, grant respondent’s motion to
dismiss, and remove this matter from the court’s docket.
(Doc.
No. 11).
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
1
Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation.
The failure to file such
objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a 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 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 ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained within the PF&R, DENIES petitioner’s petition for a
2
writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 2), GRANTS respondent’s motion
to dismiss, (Doc. No. 10), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this
case from the court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 9th day of June, 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?