Morris v. Masters
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge 16 PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in State or Federal Custody is DENIED; and 2) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the court. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 6/9/2017. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JIKINTE MORRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-26283
BART MASTERS, Warden,
FCI-McDowell
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
See Doc. No. 2.
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on
May 17, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court deny
Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State or Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 1;
and remove this matter from the docket of the court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were
allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s PF&R.
The failure of any party to file such
objections within the time allotted constitutes a waiver of such
party’s right to a de novo review by this court.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
See Snyder v.
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge PF&R
as follows:
1) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in State or Federal Custody,
see Doc. No. 1, is DENIED; and
2) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the
docket of the court.
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).
28 U.S.C. §
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.
See 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.
2
Accordingly, the
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
Petitioner.
It is SO ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2017.
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?