United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PRESTON BAILEY UNITED-STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for
consideration of the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
James E. Seibert. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules,
this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for
submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Seibert
filed his R&R on April 5, 2017 [Doc. 28]. In that filing,
the magistrate judge recommended that this Court grant
respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or In the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14], deny petitioner's
28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion [Doc. 1], and dismiss this
action from the docket.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to
make a de novo review of those portions of the
magistrate judge's findings to which objection is timely
made. However, the Court is not 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).
In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a
waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal
this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94
(4th Cir. 1984).
objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's R&R were due
within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The petitioner timely filed his objections [Doc.
30] on April 17, 2017. Accordingly, this Court will conduct a
de novo review of the portions of the magistrate
judge's R&R to which the petitioner objects. The
remainder of the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.
September 19, 2016, petitioner Curtis Lee Watson
(“Watson”), an inmate at FCI Hazelton in Bruceton
Mills, West Virginia, filed an Application for Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“2241"),
seeking an Order directing the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) to “ISSUE [his] IMMEDIATE
RELEASE!” [Doc. 1 at 8]. On November 23, 2016, the
respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14]. On December 12, 2016,
Watson filed a Response in Opposition [Doc. 21] to the
Respondent's dispositive motion. The instant R&R
[Doc. 28] and Watson's Objections [Doc. 30] followed.
Magistrate Judge Seibert did well to outline lengthy factual
background of Watson's cases in his R&R, the same
does not bear repeating at length herein. Of note, on August
10, 1978, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia,
Watson was sentenced an aggregate term of 30 years to life
for assault with intent to kill; carrying a pistol without a
license; first degree murder while armed; first degree
burglary while armed (two counts); and assault while armed
[Doc. 15-1 at 2-5]. However, Watson escaped D.C. D.O.C.
custody while incarcerated at Lorton Penitentiary on August
30, 1988. He remained on escape status until October 30,
1995, and accrued a total 2, 618 days total inoperative time
[Doc. 15-6 and 15-8]. Petitioner received a federal one-year
consecutive sentence for this escape [Doc. 15-6 and
15-3]. The BOP failed to compute Watson's
escape time as inoperative time in a 2004 computation, which,
in turn, showed his parole eligibility date as being on
February 25, 2005, although this error was corrected in a
2007 re-computation which showed his parole eligibility as
May 27, 2012. The 2004 mis-computation seems to form the
basis of Watson's complaints herein.
Motion to Dismiss:
complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege
“‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.' Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (emphasis
added).” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298,
302 (4th Cir. 2008). When reviewing a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court must assume all of the allegations to be
true, must resolve all doubts and inferences in favor of the
plaintiffs, and must view the allegations in a light most
favorable to the plaintiffs. Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999).
rendering its decision, the Court should consider only the
allegations contained in the Complaint, the exhibits to the
Complaint, matters of public record, and other similar
materials that are subject to judicial notice. See
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 63 F.3d 1305, 1312 (4th
Cir. 1995). In Twombly, the Supreme Court, noting
that “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,
” Id. at 1964-65, upheld the dismissal of a
complaint where the plaintiffs did not “nudge[ ] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Id. at 1974.