Williams v. Warden

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241); and directing 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 2/17/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Case 1:18-cv-00363 Document 13 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD THOMAS A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00363 WARDEN, FPC McDowell, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on October 26, 2020, in which he recommended that the court dismiss petitioner’s section 2241 petition (ECF No. 1) and remove this matter from the court’s docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed 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 PF&R within the required time Case 1:18-cv-00363 Document 13 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 49 period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn as follows: 1. Petitioner’s section 2241 petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; and 2. The Clerk is directed 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 Case 1:18-cv-00363 Document 13 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 50 The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2021. 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?