Ezekiel v. Rickard, No. 1:2019cv00120 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing plaintiff's 1 Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appeability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/23/2021. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
Ezekiel v. Rickard Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD CHRISTOPHER L. EZEKIEL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00120 BARBARA RICKARD, Warden 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 (“PF&R”) on January 26, 2021, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s motion 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 Aboulhosn’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 Dockets.Justia.com required time 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 motion 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 and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2021. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2

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.