Boddie v. USA, No. 1:2020cv00120 - Document 16 (N.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PARTIES MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Court OVERRULES 14 Boddies Objections to the R&R; ADOPTS Report and Recommendations 12 ; DENIES 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Brendan Boddie; DENIES AS MOOT Motion to Continue filed by USA. Court concludes that Boddie has failed to make the requisite showing and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Co urt DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment Order in Civil Action No. 1:20CV120 and to strike it from the Courts active docket. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas S Kleeh on 12/5/2022. (Copy Boddie via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/5/2022: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

Download PDF

Boddie v. USA Doc. 16 Case 1:20-cv-00120-TSK Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BRENDAN BODDIE, PETITIONER, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20CV120 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:19CR16-2 (KLEEH) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE Pending before the Court is (1) the petition of Brendan Boddie to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 95; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 1]; (2) Boddie’s motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 157, 168; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 9]; (3) the Government’s motion to continue its briefing deadline [1:20CV120, ECF No. 10]; (4) the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 172; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 12]; and (5) Boddie’s objections to the R&R [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 174; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 14]. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, DENIES the parties’ motions, and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Civil Action Number 1:20cv120. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00120-TSK Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 107 BODDIE V. USA 1:20CV120/1:19CR16-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE I. RELEVANT LAW When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). An objection must be specific and particularized to warrant such review. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007). Otherwise, the Court will uphold portions of a recommendation to which a general objection or no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Midgette, 478 F.3d at 622. II. DISCUSSION Boddie filed his objections to the R&R on May 12, 2022 [ECF No. 172]. 1 Despite acknowledging his obligation to submit specific written objections, Boddie merely objects “to the recommendation in its entirety.” Id. at 1-2. This general objection relieves the Court of its obligation to conduct a de novo review. Midgette, 478 F.3d at 622. Boddie failed to direct the Court to any specific error in Magistrate Judge Aloi’s proposed findings or recommendations. Instead, he reiterated his dissatisfaction with his criminal prosecution and stated that his arguments “are plainly set forth to the best of his ability, pro se, and do not need to All docket numbers refer to Criminal Action number 1:19cr16-2 unless otherwise indicated. 1 2 Case 1:20-cv-00120-TSK Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 108 BODDIE V. USA 1:20CV120/1:19CR16-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE be reiterated and reargued for the sake of the meritless two-cent response by the magistrates [sic] recommendation” [ECF No. 174 at 2]. A passing reference to his earlier filings and arguments does not merit de novo review. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R for clear error. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Finding none, it: (1) OVERRULES Boddie’s objections to the R&R [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 174; (2) 1:20CV120, ECF No. 14]; ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 172; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 12]; (3) DENIES Boddie’s § 2255 motion [1:19CR16-2, ECF No. 95; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 1]; (4) DENIES AS MOOT Boddie’s motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 157, 168; 1:20CV120, ECF No. 9]; (5) DENIES AS MOOT the Government’s motion to continue briefing deadline [1:20CV120, ECF No. 10]; and (6) DISMISSES Civil Action Number 1:20CV120 with prejudice. IV. NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, the district appealability court when “must it issue enters a or final deny a order certificate adverse to of the applicant.” If the court denies the certificate, “the parties may 3 Case 1:20-cv-00120-TSK Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 109 BODDIE V. USA 1:20CV120/1:19CR16-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255(a). The Court finds it inappropriate to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter because Boddie has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong, and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that Boddie has failed to make the requisite showing and DENIES a certificate of appealability. It is so ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment Order in Civil Action No. 1:20CV120 and to strike it from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk shall transmit copies of this Order to Boddie by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to counsel of record by electronic means. DATED: December 5, 2022 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.