Robinson v. Wilson

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby DENIES plaintiff's 2 petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241, DENIES plaintiff's 11 motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), GRANTS defendant's request for dismissal, DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/20/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; attys) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ASHLEI RENEE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02630

WARDEN WILSON, FPC ALDERSON,
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 September 26,
2017, in which she recommended that the district court deny
plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, deny plaintiff’s
motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), grant defendant’s request for dismissal, dismiss this
action with prejudice, and remove it 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.
(4th Cir. 1989).

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

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 DENIES plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, DENIES plaintiff’s motion for modification of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), GRANTS defendant’s request
for dismissal, DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and directs
the Clerk 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 directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2017.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3