Rice v. Hogsten

Full title: REGGIE RICE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN HOGSTEN, Warden, Defendant.

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

Date published: Sep 16, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-0406 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 16, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-0406

09-16-2014

REGGIE RICE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN HOGSTEN, Warden, Defendant.

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge

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 September 19, 2013, 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." 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 counsel of record and unrepresented parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th of September, 2014.

ENTER:

/s/_________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge