United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
NATHAN RAILEY, filing as amicus curiae for Whitey Bulger, Petitioner,
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 10. 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 January 11, 2019. In his
R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the
Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied
and dismissed with prejudice.
review of 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. The
Court incorporates those facts herein. However, outlined
below are the most relevant facts of this case.
December 11, 2018, Nathan Railey (“Petitioner”)
filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Petitioner filed this
petition as amicus curiae for James “Whitey”
Bulger (“Bulger”). The same day, the Clerk issued
a Notice of Deficient Pleading and Intent to dismiss for
failing to file on court-approved forms. ECF No. 2.
Thereafter, the Petitioner re-filed his petition on the
court-approved forms, alleging one ground for relief,
“failure to protect resulting in untimely death.”
ECF No. 4-5. As relief, the Petitioner requests that
“Mr. Bulger's murder . . . be declared as a
‘wrongful death' at the hands of the BOP for
failing to protect him . . . that a FBI investigation be
launched into cases where known [protective custody] inmates
were sent to active yards . . . [and that] the Court . . .
injunct this behavior and demand that BOP's policies [be]
changed.” Id. at 8.
January 4, 2019, the Petitioner also filed a Motion for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 5], a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 7] and a Motion for
Permission to Proceed with Discovery Process/Request for
Discovery [ECF No. 8].
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
de novo review of the magistrate judge's
findings where 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 to which no objection is made. 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).
“[w]hen a party does make objections, but these
objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to
direct the district court to any specific error by the
magistrate judge, de novo review is unnecessary.”
Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D.
W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47 (4th Cir. 1982)). “When only a general objection is
made to a portion of a magistrate judge's
report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the
report-recommendation to only a clear error review.”
Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, No.
9:10-CV-1533 (GTS/DEP), 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July
12, 2012). Courts have also held that when a party's
objection lacks adequate specificity, the party waives that
objection. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets,
Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that
even though a party filed objections to the magistrate
judge's R&R, they were not specific enough to
preserve the claim for review). Bare statements “devoid
of any reference to specific findings or recommendations . .
. and unsupported by legal authority, [are] not
sufficient.” Mario 313 F.3d at 766. Finally,
the Fourth Circuit has long held, “[a]bsent objection,
we do not believe that any explanation need be given for
adopting [an R&R].” Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983) (finding that without an
objection, no explanation whatsoever is required of the
district court when adopting an R&R).
to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within
fourteen plus three days of service. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Service was accepted by the
pro se Petitioner on January 14, 2019. ECF No. 12.
The Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Objections on January 25, 2019. ECF No. 14. The Court granted
the Petitioner's motion, giving the Petitioner until
February 15, 2019 to file his objections. ECF No. 15. The
Petitioner filed his objections on February 4, 2019. ECF No.
17. The same day, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings [ECF No. 18], a Motion for Relief from Judgment
or Order [ECF No. 19], a Motion for Declaratory Judgment [ECF
No. 20] and a Request for Discovery [ECF No. 21]. Having
timely filed his objections, this Court will review the
Petitioner's objections to the R&R de novo.
The Court will review the remainder of the R&R for clear
Judge Trumble recommends dismissing the petition because the
Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the
Petitioner's claim. Specifically, the Petitioner does not
have standing to raise any issues concerning Bulger's, or
any other prisoners', execution of sentence or
calculation of sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. Magistrate
Judge Trumble found that “[r]egardless of any
‘keen interest' [the] Petitioner may have in
Bulger's or any other Protective Custody prisoners'
conditions of confinement, [the] Petitioner himself fails to
assert that he has suffered a concrete and particularized
injury in connection with the conduct about which he
complains while incarcerated at Hazelton.” ECF No. 10
at 8. Even if the Petitioner has the authority to file this
petition on behalf of Bulger, this Court does not have
jurisdiction to consider such claims because Bulger is no
longer in custody. Moreover, the Petitioner's claim does
not relate to the execution or calculation of his sentence,
but rather the conditions of confinement of a third party,
Petitioner's objections, he avers that he has
“reviewed much case law and [has] indeed seen how the
federal courts refuse to allow prisoners to act in agency or
file in amicus curiae for other inmates.” ECF No. 17 at
5. The Petitioner further avers that Magistrate Judge Trumble
has not provided any legal context to support that the
Petitioner lacks agency. Id. at 8. The Petitioner
the rules clearly delineate that a person can stand in agency
as the Real Party in Interest for the principal without
joinder and the statutory context upon pro se litigants, 28
U.S.C. § 1654, does not express the disallowance of
agency; rather, you find that this disallowance upon agency
stems from implication of ...