Harris v. Martin et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; DENIES Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DENIES Plaintiff's [7 ] Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; DISMISSES Plaintiff's 2 Complaint 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 1/5/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Civil Action No: 1:14-15925
K. MARTIN, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of fees, (Doc. No. 1), plaintiff’s
complaint, (Doc. No. 2), and plaintiff’s motion for a
(Doc. No. 7).
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. 6).
Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the
court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on October 28,
In the PF&R, Magistrate Judge VanDervort recommended that
the district court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies, deny plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees, deny
plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, 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 the PF&R.
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 PF&R within the seventeen-day period.
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).
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
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.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained within the PF&R, DENIES plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of costs, (Doc. No. 1), DENIES
plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. No. 7),
and DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint.
(Doc. No. 2).
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 petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2015.
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
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?