Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faulkner v. Coakley

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

December 17, 2018

JOSEPH FAULKNER, Petitioner,
v.
Warden, JOE COAKLEY, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GINA M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 19. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R on October 25, 2018. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

         I. Standard of Review

          Pursuant 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 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a Petitioner's 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 Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified mail on October 25, 2018. ECF No. 19. The Petitioner accepted service on October 29, 2018. ECF No. 20. The Petitioner filed objections on November 7, 2018. ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the Court will review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner objects de novo.

         II. Background

         In his § 2241 petition, the Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons unlawfully denied him credit for time served. The Petitioner asks the Court to order the BOP to credit him for his time served and to correct his “total term in effect.” Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the facts as explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying the Petitioner's claims. For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein; however, it will briefly outline the most relevant facts of this case.

         On May 14, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced in case number 1:11-CR-120 in the Northern District of Illinois. The Petitioner was sentenced to 91 months of incarceration, comprised of 45 months on Count One and 46 months on Count Two, to run consecutively. While serving this sentence, Petitioner was indicted and found guilty of other charges in case number 1:13-CR-772-2. In this case, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 years for Counts One and Nine which were to run concurrently with one another and with his sentence he was currently serving; 36 months for Count Two to run concurrently with Counts One and Nine and with his sentence he was currently serving; and 120 months for Count Three, which was to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Counts One, Two and Nine and the sentence he was currently serving. Defendant was also to be given credit for time served on the sentence imposed in 1:11-CR-120.

         III. Applicable Law

         The Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons, has responsibility for calculating a defendant's jail credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-32 (1992). When calculating a defendant's credit for time served, the BOP should follow 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which provides:

(b) Credit for prior custody - A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences -
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.