Sears v. Berkebile, No. 5:2009cv00246 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations The Court Directs that the Petioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 2241 be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/5/2010. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (mls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION RICCO SEARS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00246 D. BERKEBILE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner s March 19, 2009, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket 1]. By Standing Order [Docket 3] entered on March 19, 2009, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort,United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation [Docket 9] wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that the Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket 1] be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court s docket. 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 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 VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 April 5, 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.
