Phillips v. Masters

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, DENIES plaintiff's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), and DISMISSES this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/30/2018. (cc: plaintiff and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MICHAEL ANTHONY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-04966

SHERIFF RANDALL TUCKER,
Madison County Detention Center,
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 April 24, 2018,
in which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismiss it 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 DENIES plaintiff’s petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 and DISMISSES 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 30th day of May, 2018.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3