Brown v. Masters, No. 1:2014cv28283 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the court adopts 15 Magistrate Judge Eifert's PF&R as follows: 1) The 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED; 2) Respondent's 7 request for dismissal is GRANTED ; 3) This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and 4) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the Court. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 2/1/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mk)

Download PDF
Brown v. Masters Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ERIC M. BROWN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-28283 BART MASTERS, Warden, 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). (Doc. No. 3). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on August 5, 2016, in which she recommended that the Court deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. No. 1); grant Respondent’s request for dismissal, (Doc. No. 7); and dismiss this action, with prejudice, and that it be removed 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 Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a 1 Dockets.Justia.com waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. 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) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1), is DENIED; 2) Respondent’s request for dismissal (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED; 3) This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice; 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. 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, 2 683—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 Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner. It is SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 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.