Isaac v. Rikard, No. 1:2017cv02236 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 7 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn; DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 , 2 Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (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 8/18/2020. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Isaac v. Rikard Doc. 9 Case 1:17-cv-02236 Document 9 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ ISAAC, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02236 BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, 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 Findings and Recommendation on March 26, 2020, in which he recommended that the court dismiss petitioner’s Section 2241 Application, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), and remove this matter from the court’s docket. (ECF No. 7.) 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 any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s 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). Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:17-cv-02236 Document 9 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 46 Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April 13, 2020. Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court also adopts the Finding and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn as follows: 1. Petitioner’s Section 2241 petitions for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF Nos. 1 and 2), are 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 1:17-cv-02236 Document 9 Filed 08/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 47 The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2020. 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.