From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adigun v. Rickard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Jan 2, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00147 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 2, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00147

01-02-2020

ADEBISI ADIGUN, Plaintiff, v. 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 September 23, 2019, in which he recommended that the district court grant defendant's motion to dismiss, dismiss plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, 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 seventeen-day 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 GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss, DISMISSES plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; DENIES plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, 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." 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.

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 2nd day of January, 2020.

ENTER:

/s/_________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Adigun v. Rickard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
Jan 2, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00147 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 2, 2020)
Case details for

Adigun v. Rickard

Case Details

Full title:ADEBISI ADIGUN, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

Date published: Jan 2, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00147 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 2, 2020)