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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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 ...