Jordan v. United States of America
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER : The Court Adopts and Incorporates the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by the Magistrate Judge and Orders that the Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition be Denied and that this matter be removed from the docket. The Court denies a certificate of appealabililty. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 12/5/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Magistrate Judge VanDervort) (cds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
JASON CARLOS JORDAN,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Petition for the Issuance of a Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). 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 2). On
November 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(“PF&R”) (Document 8), wherein it is recommended that this Court deny Petitioner’s Section 2241
application.
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
December 3, 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 2241 Petition (Document 1) 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.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, to counsel of record, and to any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
December 5, 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?