Jamison v. Rickard
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley as follows: Petitioner's 1 , 2 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED; and the Clerk is directed 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 8/18/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mk)
Case 1:17-cv-03258 Document 8 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 39
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
WILLIAM COREY JAMISON,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03258
BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation on May 13, 2020, in
which he recommended that the court dismiss petitioner’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
(ECF Nos. 1 and 2), and remove this matter from the court’s
docket.
(ECF No. 7.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days and 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 within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of
Case 1:17-cv-03258 Document 8 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 40
such party’s right to a de novo review by this court.
Snyder v.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were
due by May 30, 2020.
Neither party filed any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
the court also adopts the Finding and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Tinsley as follows:
1.
Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), is
DISMISSED; 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
2
Case 1:17-cv-03258 Document 8 Filed 08/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 41
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
unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2020.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?