Turner v. United States of America

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 and 6 Amended Section 2241 Petition, DISMISSES this civil action for lack of jurisdiction 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)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-2902

DONNA M. SMITH, Acting Warden,
FPC Alderson,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this 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). See Doc. No. 4.
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on
March 10, 2017, in which he recommended that the court dismiss
Petitioner’s amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. Nos. 1 and 6; and dismiss
this civil action for lack of jurisdiction.
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.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

See Snyder v.

Neither party filed

any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the
required time period.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s
PF&R as follows:
1) Petitioner’s amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. Nos. 1 and 6, is
DISMISSED;
2) This civil action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction;
and
3) 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