Riddick v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 be DISMISSED, and that the matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/28/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-01552
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s December 30, 2009 Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1).
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on December 30, 2009, 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. '
On November 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 8) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241,
and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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).
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 the Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1) be DISMISSED, and that the
matter be REMOVED from the Court’s 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 Aa 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 DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
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?