Bugg v. Rickards
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the factual and legal analysis contained with the 12 Amended PF&R; dismissing this matter to the extent petitioner is challenging (1) the Board of Parole's calculation of his criminal sentence and (2) to the extent petitioner asserts a claim based upon U.S.S.G. Section 5G1.3(b); construing petitioner's 1 Writ of Habeas Corpus as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255; transferring the motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 12/5/2017. (cc: counsel of record; petitioner - pro se) (btm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STEPHEN TROY BUGG,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03601
BARBARA RICKARD, Warden
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 September 1, 2017, the
magistrate judge submitted his Amended PF&R, in which he
recommended that the district court DISMISS in part and CONSTRUE
and TRANSFER in part.
ECF No. 12.
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
by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the magistrate
judge’s PF&R within the seventeen-day period.
the Amended PF&R, the court adopts the findings and
recommendation contained therein.
The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained with the Amended PF&R, (ECF No. 12), DISMISSES this
matter to the extent petitioner is challenging (1) the Board of
Parole’s calculation of his criminal sentence and (2) to the
extent petitioner asserts a claim based upon U.S.S.G. §
5G1.3(b), CONSTRUES petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus as a
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, and TRANSFERS the motion to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
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.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of records and
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2017.
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
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?