Lopez-Lopez v. Rickard, No. 1:2016cv07607 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition and DISMISSES this action from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/1/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
Lopez-Lopez v. Rickard Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD RUBEN LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-07607 BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, FCI McDowell, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Doc. No. 4. Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on May 26, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court deny as moot the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and dismiss this action from the docket of the court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allotted 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 Dockets.Justia.com party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R as follows: 1) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT; and 2) This action is DISMISSED from the docket of the court. 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 further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner. 2 It is SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2017. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.