From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Hogsten

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Nov 23, 2015
Civil Action No: 1:13-00155 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 23, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No: 1:13-00155

11-23-2015

RENARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court is petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1). By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 2). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on October 22, 2015, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remove this matter from the court's docket. (Doc. No. 15 at 15-6).

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 VanDervort's Findings and Recommendation. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Petitioner 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 VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein.

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." 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.

The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DISMISSES petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket.

The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and petitioner, pro se.

It is SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2015.

ENTER:

/s/_________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Brown v. Hogsten

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Nov 23, 2015
Civil Action No: 1:13-00155 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Brown v. Hogsten

Case Details

Full title:RENARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No: 1:13-00155 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 23, 2015)

Citing Cases

Jordan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 600 (5th Cir. 1998) (rejecting prisoner's argument that BOP's change in…