Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia adopted a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation concerning Ashley Kawczynski’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the motion, removed the civil action from the docket, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- When no timely objections are filed, the district court need not conduct de novo or other review of the magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions to which no objections were made, and may adopt the PF&R.
- The court dismissed Movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence.
- A certificate of appealability was denied because Movant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should adopt the magistrate judge's PF&R when no timely objections were filed.
- Whether Movant's filing, construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, should be dismissed.
- Whether Movant was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(followed)
- Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)(followed)
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003)(followed)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 437, 484 (2000)(followed)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683–83 (4th Cir. 2001)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…