Cameron v. Rickard, No. 1:2015cv12724 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Having reviewed the 11 Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's appl ication 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 3/27/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mk)
Download PDF
Cameron v. Rickard Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD WINIFRED TERESA CAMERON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-12724 WARDEN RICKARD, Defendant. 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 on August 3, 2016, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort’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. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day Dockets.Justia.com 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 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. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2017. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2