Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-07607
09-01-2017
RUBEN LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, FCI McDowell, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations ("PF&R") for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Doc. No. 4.
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on May 26, 2017, in which he recommended that the Court deny as moot the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and dismiss this action 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 Tinsley'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 party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's PF&R within the required time period.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley's PF&R as follows:
1) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT; and
2) This action is DISMISSED 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.
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 1st day of September, 2017.
ENTER:
/s/_________
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge