Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-00648
06-06-2024
EFRAIN CASADO, Plaintiff, v. MR. ROKOSKY, Warden, FCI McDowell, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. FABER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation on October 17, 2023, in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus, deny plaintiff's motion for an injunction to produce existing documents and/or to construe as an injunction and not a civil complaint; deny the application to proceed with prepayment of fees and costs as moot, and dismiss this action and remove it from the court's docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert's Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections 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). No party filed objections to the PF&R. However, on October 30, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 8. Casado has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances that would justify appointing counsel. Accordingly, his motion for counsel is DENIED.
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus, DENIES plaintiff's motion for an injunction to produce existing documents and/or to construe as an injunction and not a civil complaint; DENIES the application to proceed with prepayment of fees and costs as moot, DISMISSES this case, and directs the Clerk to remove it 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 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 Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.