Hatfield v. Bureau of Prisons

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 10 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION submitted by Magistrate Judge Tinsley: The court FINDS that the plaintiff has received the proper prior custody credit and that his sentences have been properly executed . Therefore, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and this civil action and removes this matter from the court's docket. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/28/2019. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JOSHUA M. HATFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-05851

BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to

the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on April 23,
2019, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss
plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
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
Tinsley’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.
889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Snyder v. Ridenour,

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 Tinsley, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court FINDS that the plaintiff has received the
proper prior custody credit and that his sentences have been
properly executed.

Therefore, the court hereby DENIES

plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (ECF No. 1) and this civil action and removes this 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

standard is not satisfied in this instance.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
2

Accordingly, the

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 28th day of May, 2019.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3