Sardinetas-Sanchez v. Johnson, No. 1:2015cv13924 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Eifert, DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition 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 1/31/2017. (cc: Petitioner, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
Sardinetas-Sanchez v. Johnson Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ENRIQUE SARDINETAS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-13924 B.J. JOHNSON, 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 12, 2016, in which she recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. No. 1); 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 Magistrate Judge Eifert’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. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and 2) 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, 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 counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 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.