From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Head v. Purdue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Jul 20, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV144 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV144

07-20-2015

DWAYNE E. HEAD, Petitioner, v. R.A. PURDUE, Respondent.


( ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 17]

The pro se petitioner, Dwayne E. Head ("Head"), filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") had violated his procedural and substantive due process rights through a disciplinary hearing that resulted in the loss of fourteen days of good conduct time. He further alleges that the BOP held the disciplinary hearing in the wrong venue. The respondent, R.A. Purdue ("Purdue"), subsequently moved for dismissal or summary judgment.

On May 26, 2015, the Honorable John S. Kaull, United States Magistrate Judge, entered a report and recommendation ("R&R"), in which he concluded that the BOP had not violated Head's rights, and the venue of the disciplinary hearing was appropriate. Accordingly, Judge Kaull recommended that Purdue's motion be granted and that Head's petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Head does not object to Judge Kaull's conclusions or recommendation.

"[I]n the absence of objections, the Court must 'satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Villanueva v. River, No. 5:12CV564, 2012 WL 2500962, at *1 (D.S.C. June 28, 2012) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)). After carefully reviewing the R&R, the Court is satisfied that it is not clearly erroneous. Head's allegations regarding his due process and substantive due process rights, as well as venue, are without merit. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Purdue's motion, and DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Head's petition.

It is so ORDERED.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt requested. The Clerk is further directed to enter a separate judgment order and to remove this case from the active docket. DATED: July 20, 2015.

/s/ Irene M. Keeley

IRENE M. KEELEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Head v. Purdue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Jul 20, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV144 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Head v. Purdue

Case Details

Full title:DWAYNE E. HEAD, Petitioner, v. R.A. PURDUE, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Date published: Jul 20, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV144 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2015)