Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Andres Dorantes-De La Rosa, Petitioner, Pro Se.
B. J. Johnson, Respondent, represented by Matthew C. Lindsay , U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.
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. 3.)
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R on January 20, 2017, in which he recommended that the court dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 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 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED.