Lopez-Carlos v. Rikard, No. 1:2016cv09323 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn; DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/20/2017. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
Lopez-Carlos v. Rikard Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD FABIEN LOPEZ-CARLOS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-09323 BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this 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). (Doc. No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R on February 7, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Doc. No. 1); and remove this matter 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 Aboulhosn’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 Aboulhosn’s PF&R as follows: 1) Petitioner’s Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and 2) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter 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. court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, the The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner. It is SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 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.