Sharp v. Johnson

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby: 1) DENIES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 2) DENIES plaintiff's 16 motion to amend/supplement the petition; 3) DENIES plaintiff's 17 motion for emergency ruling onth e petition; 4) DENIES plaintiff's 18 motion to seal; 5) DENIES plaintiff's 21 motion to expedite; 6) DENIES plaintiff's 22 motion for disposition;7) GRANTS defendant's 12 request for dismissal of this action; 8) DISMISSES this action with prejudice; and 9) DIRECTS the Clerk 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 1/18/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
LEONARD SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-00020

B.J. JOHNSON, Warden
FCI McDowell,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the

court her Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on October 4,
2016, in which she recommended that the District Court deny
plaintiff’s: 1) petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 2) motion to
amend/supplement the petition; 3) motion for emergency ruling on
the petition; 4) motion to seal; 5) motion to expedite; and 6)
motion for disposition.

Magistrate Judge Eifert also recommended

that the district court grant defendant’s request for dismissal
of this action and that the court dismiss this matter with
prejudice and that it be removed 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 Eifert’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.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

(4th Cir. 1989).
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 Eifert, the court adopts
the findings and recommendations contained therein.

Accordingly,

the court hereby:
1)

DENIES plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241;

2)

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to amend/supplement the
petition (ECF No. 16);

3)

DENIES plaintiff’s motion for emergency ruling on
the petition (ECF No. 17);

4)

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 18);

5)

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to expedite (ECF No. 21);

6)

DENIES plaintiff’s motion for disposition (ECF No.
22);

7)

GRANTS defendant’s request for dismissal of this
action (ECF No. 12);

8)

DISMISSES this action with prejudice; and

9)

DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the
court’s active docket.
2

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3