Cofield v. Carver

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss on mootness grounds; dismissing this civil action; and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's active docket; additionally denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/25/2024. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
EDWINA COFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-00565

WARDEN CARVER,
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 April 15,
2022, in which she recommended that the district court grant
defendant’s request for dismissal, dismiss plaintiff’s petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 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
Tinsley’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.
889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Snyder v. Ridenour,

The parties failed to file any objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the
seventeen-day period.

However, on May 10, 2024, defendant filed

a motion to dismiss the case as moot because of plaintiff’s
release from custody.

Having reviewed the Findings and

Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein except
as modified herein.

Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS

defendant’s motion to dismiss on mootness grounds, DISMISSES
this civil action, 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

2

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 24th day of September, 2024.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3