Campbell v. Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby DENIES plaintiff's "motion to rule and grant petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241;" DISMISSES plaintiff's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/17/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; attys) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
SANDRA CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03223
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 30,
2017, in which he recommended that the district court deny
plaintiff’s “motion to rule and grant petitioner’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241;”
dismiss
plaintiff’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and remove it
from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
Findings and Recommendation.
The failure of any party to file
such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a
de novo review by this court.
(4th Cir. 1989).
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363
The parties failed to file any objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the
seventeen-day period.
Having reviewed the Findings and
Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, the court
adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s “motion to rule
and grant petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. Section 2241;” DISMISSES plaintiff’s application under
28 U.S.C. § 2241; and directs the Clerk to remove this case from
the court’s active 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 directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 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?