Dorbin v. United States of America et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS Petitioner's 3 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs is DENIED; the Petitioner's 1 Petiti on for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED and this action is REMOVED from the Court's docket.The Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/7/2012. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
JERRY DORBIN,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00343
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and WARDEN ZIEGLER,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s May 16, 2011 Application under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241
for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) and Application
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Document 3).
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 16, 2012, 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. On
August 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 6) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s Application to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis, dismiss the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and
remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
1
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation.1
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 to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(Document 3) is DENIED, the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is
DISMISSED, and this action is 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.
1
The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petition was
returned as undeliverable (Document 8).
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
September 7, 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?