Burch v. Hogsten

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn, DISMISSES petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/26/2016. (cc: counsel of record and petitioner, pro se) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ERIC JOHN-JAMARION BURCH
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:13-06793

KAREN HOGSTEN,
Warden
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
1).

(Doc. No.

By Order, this matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Omar A. Aboulhosn for submission of findings
and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).

(Doc. No. 8).

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn

submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation
on April 29, 2016, in which he recommended that the district
court dismiss petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
corpus.

(Doc. No. 10).

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
Aboulhosn’s Findings and Recommendation.

The failure to file

such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo
1 

review by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th

Cir. 1989).
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed

by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, the court adopts the findings and
recommendation contained therein.
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.”
2253(c)(2).

Id. §

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 court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained within the PF&R, DISMISSES petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to
remove this case from the court’s docket.
2 

The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2016.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3