United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [DKT. NO.
S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Introduction and Procedural History
February 12, 2018, Gregory Lindsey (“Petitioner”)
filed a pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Jennifer Saad
(“Respondent”) [Dkt. No. 1]. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation
Procedure 2, the Court referred the case to the Honorable
Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for an
initial review and report and recommendation on the
disposition of this matter.
2, 2018, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, a motion for summary judgment [Dkt. No. 11].
After issuance of a Roseboro notice [Dkt. No. 12],
the Petitioner filed a response to the motion [Dkt. No. 22].
Respondent filed a reply on June 14, 2018 [Dkt. No. 23]. On
December 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Aloi entered a report and
recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the
Court grant Respondent's motion (Dkt. No. 32) and that
the § 2241 petition [Dkt. No. 1] be denied and
R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi also informed the parties of
their right to file objections to the recommendation within
14 days of being served with the R&R [Dkt. No. 32 at 14].
Petitioner received the R&R on December 19, 2018 [Dkt.
No. 33]. He then moved for an extension of time to file
objections to the R&R, and this motion was filed on
December 27, 2018 [Dkt. No. 34]. By Order entered January 4,
2019, the Court granted Petitioner a 30-day extension of time
by which to file objections to the R&R [Dkt. No. 35].
Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. No. 38] on January 8, 2019. On June
12, 2019, Petitioner filed a document titled “Order
to Show Cause - Petitioner is Asking the Courts to Show Cause
and Grant the Petitioner Good Time Credits” [Dkt.
No. 41] and requested the same relief as in the § 2241
petition. No. other pleadings were filed by the parties.
reasons articulated below, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be
affirmed and adopted in its entirety.
Court believes that a full recitation of the facts in this
case is unnecessary here. Accordingly, this Court relies on
the detailed recitation of facts provided in section III of
the magistrate judge's R&R [Dkt. No. 22 at 4-6]. An
abbreviated review of the relevant facts follows below.
Petitioner is currently serving a sentence in federal
custody for a conviction in the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia (“D.C. Superior Court”),
No. 1998-FEL-003373, on charges of First Degree Murder While
Armed, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-2404,
3202; Possession of a Firearm During a Crime of
Violence, in violation of D.C. Code §
22-3202; and Carrying a Pistol Without a License,
in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3204(A)[Dkt. No. 32 at
5]. On September 10, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced in the
D.C. Superior Court to 20 years to life for First Degree
Murder While Armed; 5 years to 15 years for Possession of a
Firearm During a Crime of Violence; and 20 months to 5 years
for Carrying a Pistol Without a License, with some counts
concurrent and some consecutive to one another, resulting in
a mandatory minimum term of 25 years. Petitioner's conviction
was upheld on appeal. See Lindsey v. United States,
911 A.2d 824 (D.C. App. Nov. 30, 2006).
§ 2241 petition, the Petitioner challenges the Bureau of
Prison's (“BOP”) computation of his good time
credit (“GTC”) and his parole eligibility date
[Dkt. No. 1]. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the
BOP should calculate his GTCs in accordance with the District
of Columbia's Good Time Credits Act of 1986 (“D.C.
GTCA”), D.C. Code § 24-428 et seq., and
apply the GTCs against the mandatory minimum term to which he
has been sentenced [Id.].
Standard of Review
reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must
review de novo only the portions to which an
objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge's
recommendations to which the [parties do] not object.”
Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600,
603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions
of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005). Petitioner's petition will be liberally
construed because he is proceeding pro se. See
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Petition's
objections [Dkt. No. 38] are addressed to Respondent's
arguments in support of the motion to dismiss as well as the
magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court will only
address the objections directed to the R&R.