Kenneth Mobley v. FBOP-McDowell

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

KENNETH MOBLEY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-00206 FBOP-MCDOWELL, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder for submission of proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Reeder submitted his proposed findings and recommendation on May 8, 2026. In that Proposed Findings and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that this court deny as moot petitioner’s amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, deny as moot respondent’s motion to dismiss, deny as moot petitioner’s motion for expedited process, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and remove the matter from the court’s active 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 Reeder’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); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, this court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). No objections to the PF&R were filed.

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Reeder, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the PF&R. Accordingly, the court DENIES as moot plaintiff’s amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DENIES as moot respondent’s motion to dismiss, DENIES as moot petitioner’s motion for expedited process, 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 −2− 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 copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.

It is SO ORDERED this lst day of July, 2026.

ENTER: Raut O Dabo David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge