Skeens v. King, No. 1:2020cv00749 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting Respondent's 9 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing this action without prejudice and removing it from the court's docket. The court denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 6/14/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Skeens v. King Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD WILLIAM PARRIS SKEENS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00749 TIMOTHY KING, Superintendent, Southwestern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility, 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 Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on April 22, 2021, in which she recommended that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss, deny petitioner’s § 2254 petition without prejudice, and dismiss and remove this case from the court’s docket. 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 objections to the PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review Dockets.Justia.com by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Neither party filed any objections to the PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the PF&R as follows: 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; and 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and removed from the court’s 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 send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2021. 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.
