Ayers v. United States District Court, No. 1:2011cv00888 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; DISMISSES petitioner's 1 PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 10/6/2014. (cc: Petitioner, pro se) (mjp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ayers v. United States District Court Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD KATHRYN LOIS AYERS, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No: 1:11-0888 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 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). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on September 12, 2013, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss petitioner s application and remove this matter from the court s docket. (Doc. No. 13). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), petitioner was 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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. The court hereby DISMISSES petitioner s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court s 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. court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, the The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2014. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
