Savoca v. United States of America, No. 2:2016cv06666 - Document 372 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; adopting 371 Proposed Findings and Recommendations as to Thomas J. Savoca (1)denying 293 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Thomas J. Savoca (1) and 346 LETTER-FORM MOTION For Permission to File a Supplement Motion; dismissing this civil action from the docket of the Court; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 2/16/2022. (cc: Judge, counsel of record, any unrepresented parties) (tmr)

Download PDF
Savoca v. United States of America Doc. 372 Case 2:16-cv-06666 Document 372 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 96 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON THOMAS SAVOCA, Movant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-06666 CRIMINAL NO. 2:03-00194-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on October 8, 2020, in which he recommended that the court deny movant’s Emergency Motion to Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 293) and his pro se letter-form motion to supplement (ECF No. 346), and dismiss this civil action from the docket of the court. (ECF No. 371.) 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 by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:16-cv-06666 Document 372 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 97 1989). The parties failed to file objections to the PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the PF&R as follows: 1. Movant’s Emergency Motion to Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 293) and his pro se letter-form motion to supplement (ECF No. 346) are DENIED; and 2. This civil action is DISMISSED from the docket of the court. 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. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. 2 Case 2:16-cv-06666 Document 372 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 98 IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2022. 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.