Ramos v. Masters

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the 16 PF&R; DENIES with prejudice petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/23/2015. (cc: Petitioner, pro se; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JESUS RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:14-27812

BART MASTERS,
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.
1).

(Doc. No.

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).

(Doc. No. 3).

Magistrate Judge

Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and
Recommendation on October 20, 2015, in which she recommended
that the district court deny petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
from the court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 16 at 7).

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
Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation.
1 

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 with prejudice petitioner’s

2 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 1), 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 23rd day of November, 2015.

ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3