Amaker v. United States of America

Filing 262

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Monica Lorraine Amaker: The court ADOPTS the 260 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; DENIES Movant's 254 "Request for Permission to File a Successive Section 2255 Pursua nt to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, S. Ct. April 18, 2016" and directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/20/2017. (cc: Movant and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD MONICA LORRAINE AMAKER, Movant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05512 (CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:05-00149) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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. 255.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R on February 15, 2017, in which he recommended that the court deny Movant’s “Request for Permission to File a Successive § 2255 Pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, S. Ct. April 18, 2016” (Civil Action No. 1:16-05512, Doc. No. 254 and Criminal Action No. 2:05-00149, Doc. No. 107); and remove this matter from the Court’s docket unless Movant can demonstrate within the period of time allotted for objecting to this PF&R that the Motion was filed within the proper time period or circumstances exist which would permit equitable tolling of the limitation period. 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) Movant’s “Request for Permission to File a Successive § 2255 Pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, S. Ct. April 18, 2016” (Civil Action No. 1:16-05512, Doc. No. 254 and Criminal Action No. 2:05-00149, Doc. No. 107) is DENIED; 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 2    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 further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Movant. It is SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2017.                   ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3     

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?