Pugh v. Johnson

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley; DISMISSES as moot Petitioner's 1 , 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and 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 9/5/2018. (cc: Petitioner, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-01681

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.
2.

ECF Nos. 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 June 12, 2018, the magistrate

judge submitted his PF&R, in which he recommended that the
district court dismiss as moot petitioner’s petition and remove
the matter from the court’s docket.

ECF No. 6.

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 as moot because the court lacks jurisdiction to
provide him with any relief since his requested relief
has already been granted in petitioner’s court of
conviction, (ECF Nos. 1, 2); 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
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
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2018.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3