ARNOLDO AVITIA GAMBOA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

ARNOLDO AVITIA GAMBOA, Movant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00242 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:07-cr-00136 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Reeder submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF No. 68], and recommended that the court deny Movant’s Motion to Set Aside/Correct Sentence, [ECF No. 61], filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, and stricken from the Court’s docket.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The motion, [ECF No. 61], is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice and shall be STRICKEN from the docket.

The court has additionally 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.” /d. § 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 court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: May 5, 2026 Me G ow STATES DISTRICT JUDGE