Carranza v. Masters et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED; and 2) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the court. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/23/2017. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
VICTOR CARRANZA,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-14446

BART MASTERS, Warden, et al.,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 2.)
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R
on March 2, 2017, in which he recommended that the court dismiss
Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) and
that the court remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were
allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R.

The failure of any party to

file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a
waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court.
See Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).

Neither

party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within
the required time period.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
PF&R as follows:
1) Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc.
No. 1) is DISMISSED; and
2) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the
docket of the court.
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).

28 U.S.C. §

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.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

2 

Accordingly, the

The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
Petitioner.
It is SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2017.

ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3