Brown v. Hogsten, No. 1:2013cv00155 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the 15 PF&R; DISMISSES petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/23/2015. (cc: Petitioner, pro se; counsel of record) (mk)

Download PDF
Brown v. Hogsten Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD RENARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No: 1:13-00155 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. 1). (Doc. No. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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.” 2253(c)(2). Id. § 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 2 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: 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.