Yates v. Reherman

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court adopts the 14 findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge; DENIES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, GRANTS the 16 motion to dismiss, DISMISSES this matter with prejudice, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket; and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/14/2021. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MEREDITH ANN YATES,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00436

M.E. REHERMAN, WARDEN of
ALDERSON FPC,
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 May 29, 2020,
in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, grant defendant’s request for
dismissal, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and remove this
matter 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

On June 15, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the PF&R.
See ECF No. 15.

Most of this document does not specifically address

Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation and,
rather, is more a general rejection of the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation and denunciation of a number of things, including the
courts.

See, e.g., Objections at 1 (“You took an oath, before God, to

uphold and defend the Constitution yet punish people for not abiding
in unconstitutional laws while holding the BOP accountable, letting
them operate outside of the law.
Justice.”).

You mock God and you mock

Furthermore, on January 6, 2021, defendant filed a

motion to dismiss arguing that the petition should be dismissed
as moot because plaintiff was released on July 17, 2020.

See ECF

No. 16.
Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s
report to which a specific objection has been made.

The court need

not conduct de novo review, however, “when a party makes general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error
in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”

Orpiano

v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) (“The district court to whom the case is assigned shall make a
de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence,
of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific
written objection has been made in accordance with this rule.”).
Plaintiff's objections are not the type of objections
contemplated by the federal rules.

They are a more a tirade and have

2

nothing to do with the specifics of Magistrate Judge Eifert's Proposed
Findings and Recommendation.

Because plaintiff's objections are

"general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations,” they are OVERRULED.

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, GRANTS the
motions to dismiss, DISMISSES this matter 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

3

standard is not satisfied in this instance.

Accordingly, the

court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
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 14th day of July, 2021.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

4