Manley v. Alderson Federal Prison Camp

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; denying as moot plaintiff's 1 Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and her 4 Motion for home confinement; dismissing this civil action; and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket; further denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/14/2023. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JENNIFER N. MANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00403

WARDEN, ALDERSON FEDERAL
PRISON CAMP,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to

the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on October
20, 2023, in which he recommended that the district court deny
as moot plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and her
motion for home confinement, dismiss this civil action, 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.

Snyder v. Ridenour,

889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
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 Tinsley, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES as moot plaintiff’s
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and her motion for home
confinement, 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

standard is not satisfied in this instance.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

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 14th day of November, 2023.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3