Toler v. United States of America
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 88 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and ORDERS that Petitioner's 75 Section 2255 Motion be DENIED and that this matter be REMOVED from its docket. The Court ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be DENIED. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/28/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
GARRY L. TOLER,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-01323
(Criminal No. 5:03-cr-00122)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Letter-form Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document 75). This action
was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission
to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). (Document 77). On November 1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed
Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 88), wherein it is recommended that this
Court deny Petitioner’s motion as it represents a successive proceeding under Section 2255 filed
without the authorization of the Court of Appeals. It is further recommended that the instant action
be removed from the Court’s docket.
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to
which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely
objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s
Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct
a de novo review 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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on
November 19, 2012. To date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed
Findings and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS
that Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion (Document 75) be DENIED and that this matter be
REMOVED from its docket.
The Court has additionally 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.” Id.§ 2253(c)(2). 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. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be
DENIED.
2
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
3
November 28, 2012
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?