Cameron v. Rickard

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Having reviewed the 11 Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's appl ication under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/27/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
WINIFRED TERESA CAMERON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-12724

WARDEN RICKARD,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to

the court his Findings and Recommendation on August 3, 2016, in
which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s
application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this matter from the
court’s 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 VanDervort’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).
The parties 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
recommendations contained therein.

Accordingly, the court hereby

DISMISSES plaintiff’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.”
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.

Accordingly, the court DENIES a

certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2017.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
2