Lopez-Lopez v. Johnson

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition and DISMISSES this action from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/1/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
RUBEN LOPEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-07607

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,
FCI McDowell,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

See Doc. No. 4.

Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on
May 26, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court deny as
moot the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241; and dismiss this action 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
Magistrate Judge Tinsley’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.
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 Tinsley’s
PF&R as follows:
1) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT; and
2) This action is DISMISSED 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.

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
Petitioner.
2 

It is SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2017.

ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3