Carroll v. Dingus, No. 1:2013cv29389 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 18 Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Tinsley, GRANTS Respondent's 11 CORRECTED Motion to Dismiss; DENIES Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for Default Judgment, DENIES Pl aintiff's 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES Petitioner's 1 MOTION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs as moot; and DISMISSES this matter from the court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/9/2015. (cc: Prisoner, pro se, and counsel of record) (mk)

Download PDF
Carroll v. Dingus Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD CLAYTON E. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-29389 DENNIS DINGUS, Warden, McDowell County Correctional Center, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on August 5, 2015, in which he recommended that the District Court grant respondent’s corrected motion to dismiss, deny plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, deny plaintiff’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, deny as moot petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, and dismiss this matter from the court's docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file Dockets.Justia.com such objections 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). The parties 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 Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS respondent’s corrected motion to dismiss, DENIES plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, DENIES plaintiff’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, DENIES as moot petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, and DISMISSES this matter 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 2 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 further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 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.