Reel v. Warden

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Eifert; DENIES as moot Petitioner's 2 Section 2241 Petition, 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 1/31/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ERIKA M. REEL,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-01363
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05883

WARDEN, FPC ALDERSON,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, these matters were 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
October 11, 2016, in which she recommended that the Court deny,
as moot, the Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 2 in each case); and remove these
matters 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.
1 

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 Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 2 in each case) are DENIED, as
moot; and
2) The Clerk is directed to remove these matters 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

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
Order to counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3