Cordell v. Reherman, No. 1:2020cv00010 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert; GRANTS Petitioner's voluntary 15 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSES without prejudice Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241); and directs the Clerk 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 8/14/2020. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Cordell v. Reherman Doc. 17 Case 1:20-cv-00010 Document 17 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD KAMALAH CORDELL, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00010 M. E. REHERMAN, Warden, Alderson Prison Camp, 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 March 5, 2020, in which she recommended that the court grant petitioner’s voluntary Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 15), dismiss petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF No. 1), without prejudice, and remove this case from the court’s active docket. (ECF No. 16.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were 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 such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00010 Document 17 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 63 such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 23, 2020. Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court also adopts the Finding and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Eifert as follows: 1. Petitioner’s voluntary Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED; 2. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); and 3. 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. 2 Case 1:20-cv-00010 Document 17 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 64 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. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 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 14th day of August, 2020. 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.