Jones v. Zuniga, No. 1:2015cv14845 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, DENIES Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition, GRANTS Respondent's 9 request for dismissal; DISMISSES this action and directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/22/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb) Modified text on 5/22/2017 (slr).

Download PDF
Jones v. Zuniga Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD MICHAEL JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-14845 WARDEN ZUNIGA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Doc. No. 3. Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on February 24, 2017, in which she recommended that the court deny Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 1; grant Respondent’s request for dismissal, see Doc. No. 9; dismiss this action; and remove this matter from the docket of the court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. See Snyder v. Dockets.Justia.com Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 1, is DENIED; 2) Respondent’s request for dismissal, see Doc. No. 9, is GRANTED; 3) This action is DISMISSED; and 4) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the Court. 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. See 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 2 standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner. It is SO ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 2017. 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.