Martinez-Benitez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 1:2018cv01176 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court adopts the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Eifert as follows: Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) is DISMISSED; and the Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 10/18/2019. (cc: counsel of record; unrepresented party) (mk)

Download PDF
Martinez-Benitez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JAMIE 1 MARTINEZ-BENITEZ, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-01176 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation on September 27, 2019, in which she recommended that the court dismiss petitioner’s motion for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this case from the court’s active docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), petitioner was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file 1 According to petitioner’s birth certificate and immigration and social security documents, the correct spelling of petitioner’s name is Jaime, the Spanish equivalent of James or Jamie. 1 Dockets.Justia.com such objections within the time allowed 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). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the requisite time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Eifert as follows: 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED; and 2. The Clerk is directed 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 further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2019. 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.