Washington v. Warden

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting the 7 Motion by Warden, FCI McDowell to Dismiss; denying the 1 Petition by Demond Washington for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241); dismissing this 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 3/5/2025. (cc: plaintiff and counsel of record) (arb)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00032

WARDEN, FCI McDowell,
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
5, 2023, in which she recommended that the district court grant
defendant’s motion to dismiss, deny plaintiff’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismiss this case,
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.
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.

Having reviewed the Findings and

Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to
dismiss, DENIES plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DISMISSES this 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

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 5th day of March, 2025.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3