Spor v. Warden

Filing 14

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
AT BLUEFIELD
NICOLE ROSELLA SPOR,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05310

WARDEN,
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. 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).

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 20th day of March, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3