Jordan v. United States of America, No. 5:2010cv00055 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER : The Court Adopts and Incorporates the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by the Magistrate Judge and Orders that the Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition be Denied and that this matter be removed from the docket. The Court denies a certificate of appealabililty. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 12/5/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Magistrate Judge VanDervort) (cds)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JASON CARLOS JORDAN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Petition for the Issuance of a Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). 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(b)(1)(B). (Document 2). On November 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 8), wherein it is recommended that this Court deny Petitioner s Section 2241 application. 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on December 3, 2012. To date, no party has filed any 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, and ORDERS that Petitioner s Section 2241 Petition (Document 1) be DENIED and that this matter be REMOVED from its 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 ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, to counsel of record, and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 December 5, 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.