Goodson v. Johnson

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, DENIES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; DISMISSES Goodson's potential unexhausted claims reg arding the calculation of his parole term without prejudice; DISMISSES the remainder of Goodson's claims with prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/2/2018. (cc: plaintiff and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MARVIN MAURICE GOODSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-01692

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 July 31, 2017,
in which she recommended that the district court (1) deny
plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; (2) dismiss
Goodson’s potential unexhausted claims regarding the calculation
of his parole term without prejudice; (3) dismiss the remainder
of the claims with prejudice; and (4) remove the matter 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) DISMISSES Goodson’s potential unexhausted claims
regarding the calculation of his parole term without prejudice;
(3) DISMISSES the remainder of Goodson’s claims with prejudice;
and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the court’s
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 directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3