From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HUNTER-MATHIS v. HOKE

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield
Jul 5, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0807 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0807.

July 5, 2011


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on June 8, 2011, in which he recommended that the District Court deny plaintiff's application to proceed without payment of fees and costs, dismiss plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and remove this matter from the court's docket unless the plaintiff can demonstrate within the period of time allotted for filing objections to the PF R that the petition was filed within the proper time period or circumstances exist which would permit equitable tolling of the limitation period.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to ade novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's application to proceed without payment of fees and costs, DISMISSES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket.

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." 28 U.S.C. § 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 Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

HUNTER-MATHIS v. HOKE

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield
Jul 5, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0807 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2011)
Case details for

HUNTER-MATHIS v. HOKE

Case Details

Full title:GIANNA HUNTER-MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN HOKE, Warden, Lakin…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield

Date published: Jul 5, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0807 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2011)

Citing Cases

Yaselli v. Goff

In Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001, the court held that a prosecuting attorney was not…

United States v. Smyth

Most states have, by judicial decision, established the rule that, the grand jury being an essential part of…