Chandler v. Masters

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby adopts the factual and legal analysis contained in the 4 PF&R as follows: Petitioner's 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction and the Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/31/2018. (cc: Petitioner, pro se; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CECIL W. CHANDLER, III,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-08528

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,
FCI McDowell,
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.

ECF No. 1.

By Standing Order, the 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).

On May 14, 2018, the magistrate

judge submitted his PF&R, in which he recommended that the
district court dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction and
remove the matter from the court’s docket.

ECF No. 4.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s
Findings and Recommendation.

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).
Neither party has filed any objections to the PF&R within
the seventeen-day period.

Accordingly, having reviewed the

PF&R, the court hereby adopts the factual and legal analysis
contained therein, as follows:
1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction,
(ECF No. 1); and
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED 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.
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
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3