Miller v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:2009cv00486 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs filed by Titus Miller; DISMISSING the 1 Petition for Writ of Habe as Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241; removing this matter from the Court's docket; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/12/2012. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION TITUS MILLER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00486 BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s May 4, 2009 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1) filed in this matter. The Court has also reviewed the Petitioner s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Document 4). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on May 5, 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 May 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, dismiss the Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and remove this matter from the Court s docket. On June 4, 2012, an envelope returned from Lexington Federal Medical Center and marked Unable to Forward and was filed (Document 8). 1 Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner=s right to appeal this Court=s Order. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Document 4) is DENIED, the Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1) is DISMISSED, and this action is 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 Aa 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. 2 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: 3 June 12, 2012

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.