Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ERIC GERMAINE SUMMERS,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00452
WARDEN ROKOSKY,
FCI MCDOWELL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on February
26, 2025, in which he recommended that the district court grant
defendant’s motion to dismiss, deny plaintiff’s petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot, dismiss this civil action, and remove
this matter from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party
to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's
right to a de 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 Tinsley, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to
dismiss, DENIES plaintiff’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as
moot, DISMISSES this civil action, and directs the Clerk to
remove this case from the court’s active 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 David A. Faber Senior standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2025. ENTER: 3
