Spor v. Warden
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's 13 PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner's 1 Petition 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 3/20/2017. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
NICOLE ROSELLA SPOR,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05310
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. 4.)
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R
on January 25, 2017, in which he recommended that the court
dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1);
and remove this matter from the docket of the court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were
allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’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.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
See Snyder v.
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 Petition 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).
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
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.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
It is SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2017.
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?