Jones v. Johnson

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, DENIES Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition, GRANTS Respondent's 9 request for dismissal; DISMISSES this action 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 5/22/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb) Modified text on 5/22/2017 (slr).

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-14845

WARDEN ZUNIGA,
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). See Doc. No. 3.
Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on
February 24, 2017, in which she recommended that the court deny
Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 1; grant Respondent’s request for
dismissal, see Doc. No. 9; dismiss this action; and remove this
matter 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 the
Magistrate Judge’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.

See 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) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 1, is DENIED;
2) Respondent’s request for dismissal, see Doc. No. 9, is
GRANTED;
3) This action is DISMISSED; and
4) 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.
See 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 22nd day of May, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3