Aguon v. Rickard

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn, DISMISSES this matter, without prejudice, (ECF No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 10/11/2017. (cc: petitioner, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ROBERT L. AGUON,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:17-01864

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is petitioner’s application for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

ECF No. 1.

By Standing Order, the 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).

On August 16, 2017, the magistrate

judge submitted his PF&R, in which he recommended that the
district court dismiss this matter without prejudice and remove
the matter from the court’s docket.

ECF No. 16.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
Findings and Recommendation.

The failure to file such

objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review

1 

by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.

1989).
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the magistrate
judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation, the

court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein.
The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained with the PF&R, (ECF No. 16), DISMISSES this matter,
without prejudice, (ECF No. 1) and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove
this case from the court’s 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.
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 petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2017.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3