Ray v. Masters

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Eifert, DENIES the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 2241), GRANTS Respondent's 7 Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES this action, with prejudice, and directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/13/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-06712

NICOLE ENGLISH, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 3.)
Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on
February 13, 2017, in which she recommended that the Court deny
the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241; grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; and dismiss this
action, with prejudice, and remove it 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
Magistrate Judge Eifert’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.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Neither

party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within
the required time period.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Eifert’s
PF&R as follows:
1) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED;
2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and
3) This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, and 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.
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

2 

standard is not satisfied in this instance.

Accordingly, the

court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
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 13th day of March, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3