Pittman v. United States of America

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley: The Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's 1 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/6/2018. (cc: Plaintiff; attys) (mk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD MAURICE PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-28487 WARDEN, FCI RAY BROOK, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on February 1, 2018, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction, and remove the matter from the court’s docket. 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 Tinsley’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. (4th Cir. 1989). Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 The parties 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 Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s active docket. 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. 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 Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2018. 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?