Summary
adopting recommendation that the court dismiss § 2241 action seeking reduction in sentence pursuant to the First Step Act where the sentencing court already ruled on petitioner's sentence in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act
Summary of this case from Parker v. BarnesOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-01365
09-11-2019
DOUGLAS KITTRELLS Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI MCDOWELL, 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 February 7, 2019, in which he recommended that the court deny petitioner's letter-form Motion for Reduction of Sentence, dismiss petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and remove this case from the court's active docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), petitioner was 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).
Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the requisite time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn as follows:
1. Petitioner's letter-form Motion for Reduction of Sentence is DENIED;
2. Petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED;
3. This action is DISMISSED; and
4. 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." 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 further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2019.
ENTER:
/s/_________
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge