United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
BRANDON J. THOMPSON, Petitioner,
FREDERICK ENTZEL, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND OVERRULING
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se petitioner, Brandon J. Thompson
(“Thompson”), a federal inmate incarcerated at
F.C.I. Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, filed a
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF
No. 1. This Court entered an order to show cause why the
petition should not be granted. ECF No. 6. The respondent
filed a motion to dismiss the petition or, in the
alternative, a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 8.
Petitioner then filed a response in opposition and
memorandum. ECF Nos. 16 and 17. The action was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone for initial
review and report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation
Procedure 2. The magistrate judge filed a report and
recommendation recommending that respondent’s motion be
granted and the petitioner’s § 2241 petition be
dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 19. The magistrate judge
informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of
the report and recommendation, they were required to file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with copies of the report. The petitioner filed objections.
ECF No. 21.
petition, petitioner asserts that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) violated his right to due process
and the Accardi Doctrine by failing to provide him
with a report from the Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(“DHO”) following an incident and investigation
stemming from an assault of another inmate. Petitioner claims
that the DHO report was purposefully withheld by the BOP so
that petitioner could not timely appeal his hearing to the
regional office. For relief, the petitioner requests that
this Court expunge his conviction to ensure the BOP staff
will not continue to disregard BOP policy and to deter BOP
staff from future actions that violate this policy. ECF No.
States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone entered a report and
recommendation. ECF No. 19. The magistrate judge noted that a
federal prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding under
§ 2241 must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to
filing suit. The magistrate judge determined that in the
instant matter, there is no dispute that petitioner failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his
disciplinary proceeding. Id. at 9. Further, the
magistrate judge found that there is no violation of the
Accardi Doctrine and petitioner’s pending
petition is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust.
Id. at 10. Moreover, even if this Court were
inclined to excuse exhaustion, the magistrate judge found
that the petition fails to state a proper ground for relief.
Id. On review, the magistrate judge noted that the
petitioner was provided all the due process required of
disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner’s claims do
not state a claim for relief as they do not involve a liberty
interest and do not state a cognizable habeas claim.
Id. at 11-12.
petitioner filed timely objections. ECF No. 21. In his
objections, the petitioner reiterates his argument that the
BOP staff purposefully withheld his DHO report to prevent him
from filing an appeal. Petitioner continues by asserting that
he did not fail to exhaust, but rather, “was unable to
exhaust administrative remedies due to impediments put in
place by staff designed to prevent the Petitioner (as well as
all inmates) from being able to exhaust administrative
remedies.” Id. at 3.
reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge should be affirmed and
adopted in its entirety.
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 an objection is timely
made. Because the petitioner filed objections to the report
and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s
recommendation will be reviewed de novo as to those
findings to which the petitioner objected. As to those
findings to which objections were not filed, all findings and
recommendations will be upheld unless they are “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §
Court has conducted a de novo review of the portion
of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
concerning the petitioner’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and finds that the petitioner’s
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies cannot be
excused. As the magistrate judge correctly stated, a federal
prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding under §
2241 must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit, and failure to exhaust may only be excused upon a
showing of cause and prejudice. Courts have enforced a
longstanding policy favoring exhaustion prerequisites in
habeas corpus actions arising under § 2241 in order to
promote important policies such as developing the necessary
factual background upon which the petitioner’s claim is
based, allowing the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) the opportunity to exercise its
discretion and apply its expertise in this area, conserving
scarce judicial resources, giving the BOP a chance to
discover and correct its own possible error, and avoiding
deliberate disregard for the administrative process. In this
case, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, this
Court finds that the petitioner has not exhausted his
this Court agrees with the magistrate judge that even if this
Court were inclined to excuse exhaustion, which it is not,
the petition ultimately fails to state a proper ground for
relief as the petitioner was provided all the due process
required of disciplinary proceedings and the
petitioner’s claims do not involve a liberty interest
and do not state a cognizable habeas claim.
petitioner’s objections, this Court finds that
petitioner does not specifically object to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, but merely
reiterates his previous arguments made in support of his
petition and in response to the respondent’s motion.
Upon review, this Court finds that petitioner has failed to
make specific objections to the report and recommendation,
and that this Court has conducted an appropriate denovo review of the report and recommendation as it
relates to exhaustion requirements and ...