Miller v. Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: August 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

DARRELL W. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-00380

WARDEN, FCI McDowell,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on December 5, 2022, in which she recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, without prejudice for failure to prosecute, 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 Eifert’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. However, on December 19, 2022, Miller did file a belated response to Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Order to Show Cause and an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of

Costs and Fees. Miller never responded to the PF&R’s recommendation that his petition be dismissed. The BOP’s Inmate Locator indicates that Miller is not in BOP custody. Therefore, his petition, in which he seeks release from custody, is moot. See Alvarez v. Conley, 145 F. App’x 428, 429 (4th Cir. 2005) (“Since Alvarez’s § 2241 petition was based on his claim of illegal detention, and sought only release from that detention, we conclude that his release renders the appeal moot.”). To the extent that Miller seeks other relief, it cannot be redressed in this lawsuit. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court adopts the findings and

recommendations contained therein. However, because defendant has been released from custody, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s active docket.

2 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 directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this Ist day of August, 2025. ENTER: Raut O Dabo David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge