May v. Warden, Federal Prison Camp-Alderson

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert; DENIES as moot petitioner's 2 petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to petitioner's release from custody; 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 8/2/2018. (cc: petitioner, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
VANESSA HOWELL MAY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-10561

WARDEN, Federal Prison Camp-Alderson,
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.

ECF No. 2.

By Standing Order, the matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On June 19, 2018, the magistrate

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

ECF No. 15.

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 Eifert’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
DENIED as moot due to petitioner’s release from custody,
(ECF No. 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

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

Accordingly, the

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 2nd day of August, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3