IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD STEPHEN TROY BUGG, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03601 BARBARA RICKARD, Warden

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. By Standing Order, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). On September 1, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted his Amended PF&R, in which he recommended that the district court DISMISS in part and CONSTRUE and TRANSFER in part. ECF No. 12. In accordance with the provisions of

(b), petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989). Petitioner failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s PF&R within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Amended PF&R, the court adopts the findings and

recommendation contained therein. The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained with the Amended PF&R, (ECF No. 12), DISMISSES this matter to the extent petitioner is challenging (1) the Board of Parole’s calculation of his criminal sentence and (2) to the extent petitioner asserts a claim based upon U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), CONSTRUES petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under

, and TRANSFERS the motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability. See

(c). A

certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(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 records and petitioner, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2017.

ENTER:

David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge