Santiago v. United States of America

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Neither party filed objections to the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge within the 17-day period; accordingly, the court DISMISSES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket; the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 3/4/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
RICHARD A. SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-04522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of
findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to

the court his Findings and Recommendation on August 29, 2014, in
which he recommended that the court dismiss plaintiff’s
application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and remove this case from the
court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
plaintiff was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in
which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's
Findings and Recommendation.

The failure of any party to file

such objections within the time allowed 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).
Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations within the seventeen-day

period.

Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.

Accordingly, the

court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and
unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th of March, 2015.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

2