Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
MICHAEL JONES,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-06718
B. JOHNSON, 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. 2.)
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R on January 19, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court
dismiss Petitioner’s “Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus” (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
*2 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 “Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (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.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). 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. David A. Faber Senior
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 10th day of March, 2017. ENTER:
