United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se petitioner, Wilbert Eugene Proffitt
(“Proffitt”), filed a petition for habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”). ECF
No. 1. The action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge James P. Mazzone for initial review and report and
recommendation pursuant to Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation
magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation
recommending that the petitioner's petition (ECF No. 1)
be denied as unintelligible and dismissed from the docket,
and that the petitioner's motions for an evidentiary
hearing (ECF Nos. 5 and 12) and his motion requesting
duplication of an order (ECF No. 11) be dismissed as moot.
ECF No. 15 at 5. The magistrate judge informed the parties
that if they objected to any portion of the report and
recommendation, they were required to file written objections
within 14 days after being served with copies of the report.
petitioner filed a motion to vacate. ECF No. 17. That motion
does not seem to deal with this petition (ECF No. 1).
pro se petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In the petition, the
petitioner contends that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) “has consistently from 1973
attempted different methods to destroy Proffitt, and does so
today.” Id. at 5. The petitioner also states
that he “was removed from Lewisburg penitentiary after
Dr. Mazur stated ‘they will kill you here' in
August 1973[, ]” and that he is “incarcerated
because of Miskell v. United States - filed in
Richmond.” Id. The petitioner states that
“Proffitt v. LaRose, 4:17CV2626 states the
nature of this matter[.]” Id. at 6. For
support, the petitioner states that he was “arrested on
Halloween of 2017 and taken to Elkins, W.Va., sent to Ohio
when a murder plot was discovered, sent to Philadelphia and
placed on a mental health ward where an actual attempt
involving BOP personnel is involved.” Id.
Moreover, the petitioner contends that “the seed of
this lies in an attempt in this government to destroy the
Constitution's authority[.]” Id. For
support, the petitioner asserts that “[t]he basis is
one of religion and political with communist takeover from
within - persons with knowledge are targeted (with some
success) one homicide in Maryland probable.”
Id. Lastly, the petitioner states that
“already in practice in five states and eight American
cities, Philadelphia being one of them . . . persons are
set-up, deaths classified, charges fabricated and can be
discovered through a method hereto described as
‘puppet-master' being placed into action.”
Id. at 7. In the section of his petition that
provides space for him to state the relief he seeks,
petitioner states, “[i]n 1979 a hearing was held on the
above after Proffitt went to the Atlanta Constitution
(newspaper) and he was placed in [a] penitentiary in
California, records in Richmond were removed - then Senator
did a partial [ ] investigation - four volumes - but
concerted efforts was then and now is being used by federal
insurgents.” Id. at 8.
petitioner then filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing.
ECF No. 5. Petitioner then filed a motion requesting
duplication of an order (ECF No. 11) and another motion for
an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 12).
reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made.
Because the petitioner did not file any objections to the
report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations will be upheld unless they are
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.
report and recommendation, the magistrate judge found that
the petitioner's petition is incoherent and “does
not assert factual allegations which would give rise to a
valid basis for relief which this Court has the authority to
grant.” Id. at 4.
Court finds no error in the determinations of the magistrate
judge and thus upholds his recommendation. Moreover, because
the motion to vacate (ECF No. 17) does not seem to deal with
this petition (ECF No. 1), this Court does not construe this
motion as an objection to the magistrate judge's report