Isaac v. Rikard

Opinion

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

EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ ISAAC,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02236

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on March 26, 2020, in which he recommended that the court dismiss petitioner’s Section 2241 Application, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), and remove this matter from the court’s docket. (ECF No. 7.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed 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). Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April 13, 2020. Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the court also adopts the Finding and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn as follows: 1. Petitioner’s Section 2241 petitions for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), are DISMISSED; and 2. The Clerk is directed 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 standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2020. ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge