United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for
consideration of the Report and Recommendation
(''R&R'') of United States Magistrate
Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 15. 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 June
21, 2019. In the R&R, he recommends that the
Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied
and dismissed with prejudice.
Standard of Review
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).
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 June 21, 2019. ECF No. 15. The Petitioner accepted
service on June 26, 2019. ECF No. 16. On July 11, 2019, the
Court granted the Petitioner an extension of time to file
objections. ECF No. 19. The Petitioner filed objections on
August 19, 2019. ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the Court will
review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner
objects de novo.
April 16, 2018, the pro se Petitioner filed a Petition for
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging
the calculation of her sentence. ECF No. 1. In her petition,
the Petitioner asserted three grounds for relief. In ground
one of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that it is her
“fundamental right to receive credit for time served
prior to sentencing.” Id. at 5. In ground two
of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that her jail credit
and good conduct credit have been miscalculated because she
should be released around April 14, 2020, not May 14, 2021 as
calculated by the Bureau of Prisons. Id. at 6. In
ground three of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that her
“computation begins on the date [she was] received in
custody.” Id. The Petitioner requests that she
“be credited the 348 days [she] was in Federal Custody
awaiting sentencing and [her] 329 days for Good Conduct Time
which totals 677 days.” Id. at 8.
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
April 13, 2015, an Indictment was returned in the Western
District of Virginia against the Petitioner. The following
day, the Petitioner was taken into custody. On May 19, 2015,
the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement with the Government. On March 23, 2016, the
Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of
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, which
(a) Commencement of sentence - A sentence to a term of
imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received
in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily
to commence service of sentence, at the official detention
facility at which the sentence is to be served.
(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 ...