From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Rickard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Jan 18, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-13314 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-13314

01-18-2017

KALA YVETTE ROSE, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden Federal Prison Camp Alderson, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation ("PF&R") on November 8, 2016, in which he recommended that the District Court deny plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismiss this matter 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 Tinsley'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).

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 Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk to dismiss 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." 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 forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.

ENTER:

/s/_________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rose v. Rickard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Jan 18, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-13314 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2017)
Case details for

Rose v. Rickard

Case Details

Full title:KALA YVETTE ROSE, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden Federal Prison…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

Date published: Jan 18, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-13314 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2017)