Robinson v. Wilson, No. 1:2017cv02630 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby DENIES plaintiff's 2 petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241, DENIES plaintiff's 11 motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), GRANTS defendant's request for dismissal, DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/20/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; attys) (mk)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Wilson Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ASHLEI RENEE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02630 WARDEN WILSON, FPC ALDERSON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on September 26, 2017, in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, deny plaintiff’s motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), grant defendant’s request for dismissal, dismiss this action with prejudice, and remove it from the court’s docket. 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 Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file 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). Dockets.Justia.com 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 Eifert, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DENIES plaintiff’s motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), GRANTS defendant’s request for dismissal, DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s active 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 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 directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 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.