United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
January 10, 2017
JAMEL MCKELVEY, Petitioner,
ANTHONY K. LEONARD, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
R. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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). The Magistrate
Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that
the court deny the petitioner's Motion/Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] in its entirety and dismiss
this civil action from the docket of the court. Prop. Finds.
& Rec. [ECF No. 6]. Neither party has filed objections to
the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.
district court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however,
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). The parties have not filed objections in
this case. The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's
findings of fact and recommendations and finds no clear error
on the face of the record. Therefore, the court
ACCEPTS and INCORPORATES
herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and ORDERS judgment consistent with
the findings and recommendations. The court
DENIES the plaintiff's Motion/Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1].
ruling on the petitioner's 2241 petition, 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.
court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.