Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. Coakley

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

December 18, 2019

LEONARD CLARK, Petitioner,
v.
J. COAKLEY, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GINA M. GROH, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On this 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. 32. 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 August 21, 2019. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

         I. Standard of Review

         Pursuant 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).

         Objections 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 August 21, 2019. ECF No. 32. The Petitioner accepted service on August 26, 2019. ECF No. 33. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted the Petitioner an extension of time to file objections. ECF No. 35. The Petitioner filed objections on October 17, 2019. ECF No. 41. Accordingly, the Court will review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner objects de novo.

         II. Background

         On January 14, 2019, the pro se Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging “[t]he computation and credit of [his] jail time.” ECF No. 1 at 1. In his petition, the Petitioner asserts that he has been denied credit for time served prior to his sentence. Id. at 5. The Petitioner requests that he be awarded credit for time served from June 27, 2003 through April 13, 2004. ECF No. 1-1 at 4.

         Upon 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 this case.

         On October 20, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested on state charges of possession of a controlled substance and aggravated use of a weapon. On January 28, 2003, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment following his entry of a guilty plea. The Petitioner completed his term of imprisonment for his state sentence on April 13, 2004. On June 27, 2003, while serving his state sentence, the Petitioner appeared before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. On April 13, 2004, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. On January 28, 2005, the Petitioner was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. The Petitioner has received 289 days of credit for time served for the period of April 14, 2004 through January 27, 2005.

         III. Applicable Law

         The 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 provides:

(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.