Simpson v. King, No. 2:2010cv01071 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying the petitioner's 3 Letter-Form Motion to excuse exhaustion; and dismissing the petition without prejudice. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/20/2010. (cc: petitioner; Magistrate Judge Stanley; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Simpson v. King Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CORY SIMPSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-01071 CHARLES KING, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to the court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted proposed findings of fact and recommended that the court dismiss the petition, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, DENIES the petitioner’s letter-form motion to excuse exhaustion [Docket 8], and DISMISSES the petition without prejudice. The court has additionally 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.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a showing Dockets.Justia.com 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. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Stanley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- October 20, 2010
]]>
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.
