Stone v. United States Parole Commission

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley's 12 PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner's 2 Letter-Form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED; 2) Petitioner's 9 form P etition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED; and 3) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the court. The court denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/20/2017. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-08775

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION
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). (Doc. No. 4.)
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on
October 26, 2016, in which he recommended that the Court deny
Petitioner’s Letter-Form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 2) and his form Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 9);
and remove this matter 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 Tinsley’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.

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 Tinsley’s
PF&R as follows:
1) Petitioner’s Letter-Form Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED;
2) Petitioner’s form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED; 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.
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 20th day of March, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3